I saw some comments on another post about "Inclusiveness" on how Christians on Campus groups claim to be inclusive, but are not at all inclusive with other Christian groups.

There was also mention of how Christian On Campus is deceptive to interested students, claiming that the saints are all from different Christian backgrounds and not letting on that it is all funded by LC in order to recruit new students, usually with the aim of them going to the FTT.

It brought to my memory some other deceptions that occured while I was a student. At my university Christians on Campus was a club registered with the student association. As part of being a club there were certain criteria we had to fulfill, like showing we had a certain number of student members.
That fact that many of the students in our number only came once and never again wasn't that unusual, as clubs would always ask students to sign up at the start of the year and had no way of making sure members kept coming, it was up to them if they wanted to charge a membership fee.

However, there was deception that brothers asked of me as a student. In my 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) year one the the full time serving brothers approached me and asked me if I was wiling to be the secretary for the club. He assured me that I wouldn't need to do anything, I just had to fill out some forms and I would be able to put it on my resume.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

I felt a bit weird about it, and never did put it on my resume, but I did agree to it. I look back on it as a situation I should never have been put into.

Other church kids at the same university were asked similar things, such as to be the president etc. Though I remember the brother who was the president did actually fulfill some of his roles at the annual meeting.
All I did at the annual meeting was be present.

I don't know if this is a widespread practice. Probably depends on the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present.

I wonder why they just emphasize on the full-time training. This is the eternal purpose of God, isn't it ? If we can't pass the training, we would become dysfunctional Christians in the Church life ? Sometimes, some of them tries to make fear that you couldn't become overcomer and have to be in the outer darkness where there's weeping and gnashing teeth during the millennial kingdom. How spiritual abuse is it!

But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving one.

How terrible ! It looked like corrupted nominee enterprise systems. So, your campus Christian club could become LSM nominee or puppet.

Last edited by Truthseeker; 04-08-2018 at 06:59 AM.
Reason: Wanna add some comment.

One thing that struck me about Christians on Campus was the appearance of a lack of hierarchy. There wasn't a clear case of "this guy is in charge" or "this person manages everything". Only on this forum did I discover that there is a distinct hierarchy. After all, someone has to run this place, some one has to fund it! I just never thought it very cordial to ask these questions.

At our university they also have to have a minimum amount of members in order to register as a (religious) society. In fact, they failed to get the minimum one year, making them unable to have some of the weekly sessions on campus and yet some of them who weren't students still somehow got onto campus...

Good thing they introduced finger print verification.

May I ask in which country your university is? I know anything more than that might be too specific. It's interesting how the LC practices stay the same around the world.

__________________
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

One thing that struck me about Christians on Campus was the appearance of a lack of hierarchy. There wasn't a clear case of "this guy is in charge" or "this person manages everything". Only on this forum did I discover that there is a distinct hierarchy. After all, someone has to run this place, some one has to fund it! I just never thought it very cordial to ask these questions.

At our university they also have to have a minimum amount of members in order to register as a (religious) society. In fact, they failed to get the minimum one year, making them unable to have some of the weekly sessions on campus and yet some of them who weren't students still somehow got onto campus...

Good thing they introduced finger print verification.

May I ask in which country your university is? I know anything more than that might be too specific. It's interesting how the LC practices stay the same around the world.

I'll say Australia/New Zealand. The practises in the 2 countries are similar, and both countries campus works led to the FTTH.

I also know of full time serving ones registering for one course per semester in order to be seen as more legitimate on campus.

I also know of full time serving ones registering for one course per semester in order to be seen as more legitimate on campus.

There is a LOT of "appearance versus reality" stuff with this group. A lot of positioning, selective presentation, re-wording of "red flags" to make them less noticeable, of "coding" phrases so that outsiders would think it was biblically-sourced where the practice was anything but biblical.

The vast majority of CoC activity is careful and deliberate packaging and marketing, combined with manipulation both subtle and overt. Pressure the mark, or "new one", and get to a subjective crisis point which causes the mark to respond emotionally, then use that opening as a leverage point, and get them to work immediately recruiting others. Lots of "warm fuzzies" for going along with the programme, which can be withdrawn if need be. Again, establish leverage points and then manipulate.

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

There is a LOT of "appearance versus reality" stuff with this group. A lot of positioning, selective presentation, re-wording of "red flags" to make them less noticeable, of "coding" phrases so that outsiders would think it was biblically-sourced where the practice was anything but biblical.

The vast majority of CoC activity is careful and deliberate packaging and marketing, combined with manipulation both subtle and overt. Pressure the mark, or "new one", and get to a subjective crisis point which causes the mark to respond emotionally, then use that opening as a leverage point, and get them to work immediately recruiting others. Lots of "warm fuzzies" for going along with the programme, which can be withdrawn if need be. Again, establish leverage points and then manipulate.

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

I served as a president of the CoC group at my campus. I was asked to, and it sounded reasonable enough at tge time, so I agreed. Almost immediately, I realized the students had no say in what was going on. The elders were making the decisions, we were just pawns.

In fact, the elders were there on campus participating and leading the Bible studies we had. Yet those who came to our meetings looked to us, the students, for the guidence they were seeking. We were put in a position of having to rationalize what was really going on, and I realized I could not do that. When I came to that realization, I withdrew from participating from CoC activities and focused on my studies, and I never looked back.

__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

There's a reason they go on the college campus: teen-agers are more susceptible to this pressure-and-control format than 35 year-olds. On the campus they get a much higher return-on-investment (ROI) than on Main Street.

100% true. They don't even hide the fact that this is their motive.

In fellowship with the wider church on why there is the focus on college campuses they have said that this is the first time they have been away from home and that makes them more open to the gospel.

I served as a president of the CoC group at my campus. I was asked to, and it sounded reasonable enough at tge time, so I agreed. Almost immediately, I realized the students had no say in what was going on. The elders were making the decisions, we were just pawns.

In fact, the elders were there on campus participating and leading the Bible studies we had. Yet those who came to our meetings looked to us, the students, for the guidence they were seeking. We were put in a position of having to rationalize what was really going on, and I realized I could not do that. When I came to that realization, I withdrew from participating from CoC activities and focused on my studies, and I never looked back.

And you believe it is wrong to preach the gospel when people are more open to it?

It's not about preaching the gospel -- but you knew that!

It's about being honest about who you are, and who you are associated with.

How much different was Apostle Paul towards others:

Quote:

For this is our confidence: our conscience testifies, that in singleness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom, but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and even more so towards you.

(II Cor 1.12)

__________________Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!.

And you believe it is wrong to preach the gospel when people are more open to it?

Jesus told John's disciples to tell him what they saw: the sick were healed, the dead raised, and the poor had the gospel preached to them.

We (FTTA trainees) were told to ignore the sick and the poor, the widows and orphans, and anyone else who couldn't repay us in this age. Instead go after the "good building materials", especially Caucasian college students. Is that the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

We were put in a position of having to rationalize what was really going on. . .

Deception is seen as the pathway to the truth. . . the end justifies the means. For example, "We're just Christians" . . . who are hiding our all-too-real affiliation. Once the target becomes interested in "just Jesus", slowly move them away by incremental steps of rationalization. "Christ only, Christ ever" soon becomes "Christ and the Church", which becomes the vector for the "ministry of the age".

Bait and switch. If you do it carefully enough, they never know what hit them.

Deception is seen as the pathway to the truth. . . the end justifies the means. For example, "We're just Christians" . . . who are hiding our all-too-real affiliation. Once the target becomes interested in "just Jesus", slowly move them away by incremental steps of rationalization. "Christ only, Christ ever" soon becomes "Christ and the Church", which becomes the vector for the "ministry of the age".

Bait and switch. If you do it carefully enough, they never know what hit them.

So well said. Describes the journey of every LC member.

Fortunately it does "hit them," at least many of them, as it hit me back in 2005. By then, the thought of leaving gripped us in fear.

I looked back at the trail I was on, and said, "how did I ever get here?"

__________________Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!.

I don't have a problem with Christian students coming together as a club on campus and preaching the gospel to their new classmates.

What bothers me, is that the saints were asked to put a lot of time and money into the campus work (because these young, vulnerable students were seen as 'easy' and 'ideal' targets.
What bothers me, is the deception that goes into make them look like just a bunch of students meeting together as a club on campus and preaching the gospel to new classmates, when it is actually being led by the LC and the students have little say in what is going on.

I don't have a problem with Christian students coming together as a club on campus and preaching the gospel to their new classmates.

What bothers me, is that the saints were asked to put a lot of time and money into the campus work (because these young, vulnerable students were seen as 'easy' and 'ideal' targets.
What bothers me, is the deception that goes into make them look like just a bunch of students meeting together as a club on campus and preaching the gospel to new classmates, when it is actually being led by the LC and the students have little say in what is going on.

Ooops, quoted the wrong person

All Christian groups at colleges will engage in "deception" or marketing or activity designed to make convert. I heard that one group teach students to befriend classmates for that purpose. These groups are also led not by students but older missionaries, pastors or priests (the Catholic ones) who are part of a larger interdenominational organization.

All Christian groups at colleges will engage in "deception" or marketing or activity designed to make convert. I heard that one group teach students to befriend classmates for that purpose. These groups are also led not by students but older missionaries, pastors or priests (the Catholic ones) who are part of a larger interdenominational organization.

You know what's great about this response? The ones who take the lead to bash " fallen Christianity" at every turn will, when you point out their fraudulence, do the equivalent of an indifferent shrug - "So what? Everyone does it".

Bait and switch. If you do it carefully enough, they never know what hit them.

True, they play the ball and cup trick, and if honest could do it with clear cups. But they're not honest. Nee was right, "Christians lie." He should know.

__________________“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan.

You know what's great about this response? The ones who take the lead to bash " fallen Christianity" at every turn will, when you point out their fraudulence, do the equivalent of an indifferent shrug - "So what? Everyone does it".

Your point is moot because I don't recall anyone "bashing" fallen Christianity for their on-campus ministry efforts.

Maybe you forget that:
a) all the college groups do similar, from Catholic to evangelical to parachurch organizations. I can easily prove this, I personally know paid missionaries/volunteers of other college groups in their 30's/40's and leaders who are in their 70's. Guess who is calling the big shots in these groups? The students? Of course not. And guess which churches they send new converts into - only specific churches which fit their denominational criteria. I am sure they "bend the rules" at times to fit within the secular college rules.

b) Witness Lee was probably inspired by the practices of the college groups and churches already operating on the colleges, and adopted similar methods.

It was in fact Bill Bright and others who started this idea of converting impressionable young minds far away from home at college:

You know what's great about this response? The ones who take the lead to bash " fallen Christianity" at every turn will, when you point out their fraudulence, do the equivalent of an indifferent shrug - "So what? Everyone does it".

You know what is sad about his response? The fact that there are so many GREAT college ministries out there showing the love of Christ. They're dedicated to teaching, shepherding, and discipling countless young people to Christ. These groups are not about growing a local church or a denomination - they're about growing the Body. I hope that Evangelical someday gets to meet or fellowship with a group like that - it would be life changing.

__________________Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

You know what is sad about his response? The fact that there are so many GREAT college ministries out there showing the love of Christ. They're dedicated to teaching, shepherding, and discipling countless young people to Christ. These groups are not about growing a local church or a denomination - they're about growing the Body. I hope that Evangelical someday gets to meet or fellowship with a group like that - it would be life changing.

They're not all led and run by students though, are they? They are run or sponsored by external organizations.

All Christian groups at colleges will engage in "deception" or marketing or activity designed to make convert. I heard that one group teach students to befriend classmates for that purpose. These groups are also led not by students but older missionaries, pastors or priests (the Catholic ones) who are part of a larger interdenominational organization.

In the past few months the church I'm in has been supporting Intervarsity Christian Fellowship at the four year college in my county because they are trying to establish a club there.

True that they have full-timers (recent graduates from nearby colleges with Inter-varsity clubs) who are working with the Intervarsity organization regarding what they are doing to preach the gospel to students, organize student Bible studies, form a club, etc. They just don't lie about it to everybody There is no secret about who they are and what they are doing there.

__________________
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NASB)

In the past few months the church I'm in has been supporting Intervarsity Christian Fellowship at the four year college in my county because they are trying to establish a club there.

True that they have full-timers (recent graduates from nearby colleges with Inter-varsity clubs) who are working with the Intervarsity organization regarding what they are doing to preach the gospel to students, organize student Bible studies, form a club, etc. They just don't lie about it to everybody There is no secret about who they are and what they are doing there.

What lies are you accusing us of? If asked we say who we are, we don't pretend to be Catholics or Muslims.

What lies are you accusing us of? If asked we say who we are, we don't pretend to be Catholics or Muslims.

The lies that I referred to in the OP, was that the club was run by students, that I was the club's secretary, when I did no such role.

Also, they pretend there is no affiliation with the LC, but instead act like it is an interdenominational group when asked such questions, until they feel the target has taken the bait.

I have just had a look at every other Christian club on the campus I attended, and each one states who they are affiliated with, one even stating "We are the Young Adults of [Omitted] Church"

The only one that doesn't? You guessed it. Instead it says

Established in [year], we are composed of Christians from various backgrounds that hold the faith which is common to all believers (Titus 1:4).

I also have a feeling that while these groups may be supported by full time workers in the groups they are affiliated with, the actual students who are dedicated to the group have more say in what is happening with the club

I have just had a look at every other Christian club on the campus I attended, and each one states who they are affiliated with, one even stating "We are the Young Adults of [Omitted] Church"

The only one that doesn't? You guessed it. Instead it says:

Established in [year], we are composed of Christians from various backgrounds that hold the faith which is common to all believers (Titus 1:4).

This statement is very deceptive. There is nothing in the "common faith" which requires Christians to adhere to only one dead teacher and one ministry. They appeal to what Christians have "in common," and then later introduce one of the most divisive factors known to the church.

Clever sister, did you know that all the Midwest LC's were quarantined because we refused to adhere to their "One Publication" policies?

__________________Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!.

I saw some comments on another post about "Inclusiveness" on how Christians on Campus groups claim to be inclusive, but are not at all inclusive with other Christian groups.

There was also mention of how Christian On Campus is deceptive to interested students, claiming that the saints are all from different Christian backgrounds and not letting on that it is all funded by LC in order to recruit new students, usually with the aim of them going to the FTT.

It brought to my memory some other deceptions that occured while I was a student. At my university Christians on Campus was a club registered with the student association. As part of being a club there were certain criteria we had to fulfill, like showing we had a certain number of student members.
That fact that many of the students in our number only came once and never again wasn't that unusual, as clubs would always ask students to sign up at the start of the year and had no way of making sure members kept coming, it was up to them if they wanted to charge a membership fee.

However, there was deception that brothers asked of me as a student. In my 2nd (or perhaps 3rd) year one the the full time serving brothers approached me and asked me if I was wiling to be the secretary for the club. He assured me that I wouldn't need to do anything, I just had to fill out some forms and I would be able to put it on my resume.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

I felt a bit weird about it, and never did put it on my resume, but I did agree to it. I look back on it as a situation I should never have been put into.

Other church kids at the same university were asked similar things, such as to be the president etc. Though I remember the brother who was the president did actually fulfill some of his roles at the annual meeting.
All I did at the annual meeting was be present.

I don't know if this is a widespread practice. Probably depends on the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present.

Laughing at the title and your screen name- brilliant! They probably don’t think the college kids are “mature” enough for the responsibility- which takes away the entire point!

We are Christians - a truthful statement
We are on Campus - a truthful statement
The statement is truthful and matches the beliefs of the church in being only Christians not "living stream Christians".
From Gods point of view it must be a kind of lie whenever Christians call themselves by a different name other than Christian.

Scientology does the same thing with their multiple recruiting arms. Your argument is true but it doesn’t address the issue at large which is- the goal of CoC is to increase the numbers in the local church, conveniently with people at the age right before the FTT. Come on- this is obvious. Yes- they’re Christians and they’re on campus but why even call yourself that if the real name of the group wasn’t so controversial. It is controversial- hence CoC!

Scientology does the same thing with their multiple recruiting arms. Your argument is true but it doesn’t address the issue at large which is- the goal of CoC is to increase the numbers in the local church, conveniently with people at the age right before the FTT. Come on- this is obvious. Yes- they’re Christians and they’re on campus but why even call yourself that if the real name of the group wasn’t so controversial. It is controversial- hence CoC!

Any controversy over the name is not the reason the group is not named simply CoC. The group believes that the "real name" of the group is "just Christians". Why then do you expect the group to name themselves something else on campus just because everyone else does? They are being consistent with their beliefs.

If you can find Bill Bright pushing for "typical Americans", and saying "Don't waste your time" with the poor, the widows, and the orphans, and trace this back to Jesus' teaching and example, you might have a leg to stand on.

You know what Paul Hon did, in Anaheim? He picked out one kid who looked like the spitting image of Orel Hershiser the Dodgers pitcher. Said, "This is what we want". Right in front of a couple hundred college students in a conference. Is this the gospel.

And was Paul Hon going rogue or was he channeling Lee? How did he get up front except by mimicry? Telling everyone, "This is what our brother wants". Dispense with the pseudo-spiritual claptrap and tell it like it is.

People like Paul Hon, Ray Graver and Mel Porter were invaluable to the the LC experience. If you had any uncertainty as to what it was about, they'd clear you up quick.

People like Paul Hon, Ray Graver and Mel Porter were invaluable to the the LC experience. If you had any uncertainty as to what it was about, they'd clear you up quick.

Admittedly, the LCM has grown more adapt at hiding its true colors. Perhaps they realized the hard-line attitudes of the past were bad for business. But they didn't really change any of the underlying principles of the LCM. They just made sure that newcomers weren't exposed to that right away.

__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Any controversy over the name is not the reason the group is not named simply CoC. The group believes that the "real name" of the group is "just Christians". Why then do you expect the group to name themselves something else on campus just because everyone else does? They are being consistent with their beliefs.

The issue is not the name. It’s with the claim to be “Christians from diverse backgrounds” and that they won’t openly state their association with “The Local Churches” and The Living Stream Ministry”.

I worked together with two other “Church in My City” brothers as they ran the Christians on Campus Club in coordination with Living Stream Ministry and Bibles for America staff for a few years at the community college in the city I used to live in. I know exactly how it works and what is promoted at every on campus and off campus meeting for students. The Living Stream Ministry and The Local Churches. Is it that hard to understand this?

What really disgusted me at the end of those years was the pressure put on the students we had recruited to go to college conferences and FTT.

That experience was one of the last straws for me. I was hoping to help shepherd the students into a better relationship with Jesus, and thus to build the church, and bring glory to Jesus name. Turns out that wasn’t really what Christians on Campus was really about!

Thanks to everyone for the good discussion on this topic.

No more from me on this.

__________________
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NASB)

I put this together a few years ago to use as a pamphlet to hand out on campuses.

W A R N I N G !
“Christians on Campus”

There is an aberrant Christian group on this campus called “Christians on Campus”. This group is part of “The Local Church of Witness Lee” named after the city. For example, “The Church in Austin” (or Dallas, Houston, etc.) and Witness Lee’s publishing company, The Living Stream Ministry.

What is an aberrant Christian group?
- Aberrant Christian groups are religious groups, which are characterized by the destruction of individual thought, the destruction of the family unit, and disregard for your freedom as an individual.
- Aberrant Christian groups deviate from fundamental interpretation of the Bible by introducing “new light” or exclusive insight only available from their leader in their group.

WHO IS WITNESS LEE?
- Born in Chefoo, Shandong Province, China, in 1905.
- Converted to Christianity in 1925.
- Lee became a co-worker of Watchman Nee in 1933.
- In the late 1940s Witness Lee went to Taiwan in order to continue his ministry there.
- In 1962 Lee came to the United States, settling in southern California. He then began the groundwork of churches that would develop into the modern-day "Local Church" movement.
- Witness Lee died in June 1997 in Southern California.
- A man named Benson Phillips now leads the movement along with a collective of men refered to as “blended brothers”.

What is the Witness Lee Controversy?
- Modalistic: Lee confuses the Persons of the Holy Spirit and the Son similar to modalism.
- Heresy: Lee declared that God became man in Jesus so that man could become God in Christ.
- Exclusivity: Lee taught “One church, one city” and believes that the church he founded is the one true church in a city. Lee taught that Christianity (Baptists, Methodists, other denominations and Christians) are “fallen and degraded.”
- These are only 3 of the controversies—there are many more.

How “Christians on Campus” groups operate.
- “Christians on Campus” is a recruiting arm of the Local Churches of Witness Lee.
- New recruits are not initially told that they are involved with the Local Churches or that they are being indoctrinated with the teachings and practices taught by Witness Lee.
- Campus meetings are scripted and carefully controlled. Recruits are also taken to larger Local Church meetings which are also scripted and carefully controlled for the purpose of gradual indoctrination into the main group.
- You may enjoy these scripted meetings. Though you may also find the members “different” you may find them warm and engaging. They are most likely genuine Christians.
- You may also have a nagging sense that something is not quite right about this group.
- Though you may feel conflicted about attending their meetings, you may continue to attend.

YOUR QUESTIONS
Be careful. If you express your genuine concerns by asking questions about group practices or teachings that don’t sound “right” to you, you will be met with evasive and ambiguous answers.

Important questions:
- Is Christians on Campus part of the Local Churches of Witness Lee? Is Christians on Campus part of The Church in Austin (Dallas, Norman, your city)? Do you follow Witness Lee’s ministry? Insist on a “yes” or “no” answer. If the response is evasive, take that as a “yes”.

Pay attention to semantics. Local Church members use vocabulary in different ways than you do. They use the same words, but with different meanings.
Example: “Are you a member of the Local Church?” Answer “No”. (They don’t have a “membership” roll. They are members of the Body of Christ.)

YOUR RESPONSIBILITYBe warned. The Bible says in 1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. In Acts 17:11 (NIV) Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.Be warned. Local Church members do not examine the Scriptures to see if what Witness Lee said was true.Be warned. Don’t take your positive feelings about any person or group as a sign that everything is OK. Be warned. Former members often tell of significant psychological, sociological and spiritual abuse which is typical of aberrant or cultic organizations.

YOUR FAMILYBe warned. Members are encouraged to isolate themselves from their former lives, their families and their former friends. Warnings of spiritual decline instills a paralyzing fear in those who would leave the group.
“You just don’t understand!” If you find yourself saying this to your parents, family or friends when attempting to explain your “new life” in the Local Church, you are in danger.
The Bible teaches us to honor our parents. The Local Churches teach you to isolate ourselves from your parents, your family or anyone else who would hinder your complete devotion to this group.

MORE CONTROVERSY Summary of what LC members believe:
1. What the group is doing is God‘s only meaningful work on the earth.
2. The rest of the Christians are blind outsiders who need to be proselytized or recruited.
3. They have an understanding about the Trinity that others do not have, and only they can explain it.
4. A unique corporate cause is the most important thing. There is no place for the uniqueness of the individual member.
5. There is only one man with the proper understanding and interpretation of the Bible who knows God‘s way for the group.
6. Their leaders are God‘s authorities and are part of an authoritarian, top-down hierarchy.
7. Their cause is more important than people, and they need to shun, ban, quarantine, or excommunicate any persons they feel are divisive or in some way detrimental to their purpose.
8. Any members who leave the group are turning away from following God.
9. Any who leave the group and speak out are bitter and vindictive, and need to be silenced because they spread false information.
10. Those from the outside who use media to question the group‘s teachings and practices are persecutors who need to be stopped.

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
The Bible teaches a simple gospel of a loving God who gave his only Son as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Witness Lee taught that this simple gospel is the “low gospel”. Witness Lee claimed to teach the “high gospel”. This “high gospel” is complicated with spiritual sounding words and terms strung together in a way that boggles the mind. Many Local Church members seem to believe themselves to be an elite group of Christians who understand this “high gospel” that others do not.

Texas, Oklahoma and surrounding states may be much more strongly controlled than campuses in other states.

Harvest House Publishers Corporate Statement
A Call to Keep Theological Disputes Out of the Courts
On June 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court brought an end to The Local Church’s contentious and unsuccessful six–year, $136 million legal battle against Harvest House Publishers and two of its authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon.http://www.harvesthousepublishers.co...statement7.cfm

An Open Letter
To the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the "Local Churches" http://www.open-letter.org/ Living Stream Ministry and the "local churches" (also known as The Lord's Recovery), both founded by the late Witness Lee, have been involved for decades in legal and theological controversies with noted Christian institutions and leaders. In light of this history of litigation and conflict, we the undersigned make this public appeal. ...

____________________________

Some of this information may have changed since this was prepared, but you get the idea.

Admittedly, the LCM has grown more adapt at hiding its true colors. Perhaps they realized the hard-line attitudes of the past were bad for business. But they didn't really change any of the underlying principles of the LCM. They just made sure that newcomers weren't exposed to that right away.

Thus, the topic at hand - deceptions on campus. "We're Christians from various backgrounds who love the Lord and want to come together. . ." No, you're from only one background, that of the LSM-affiliated local church. (Even the name "local church" is a misnomer, as there's nothing local about it. About the only thing you get locally is your breakfast cereal. . . all the rest comes from Anaheim.)

This statement is very deceptive. There is nothing in the "common faith" which requires Christians to adhere to only one dead teacher and one ministry. They appeal to what Christians have "in common," and then later introduce one of the most divisive factors known to the church.

Clever sister, did you know that all the Midwest LC's were quarantined because we refused to adhere to their "One Publication" policies?

I am not from the US, and only heard about the Midwest Split since starting to fellowship with other saints who have left LC.

There was a split in my own locality about 15 years ago. I don't really know why the split accord.
What I was told was "This brother was rebellious and has led several families astray. That's why so an so won't be in the highschooler meetings anymore"

However, my main memory from the split was my mother comforting the sister-in-law of the 'rebellious' brother.

The issue is not the name. It’s with the claim to be “Christians from diverse backgrounds” and that they won’t openly state their association with “The Local Churches” and The Living Stream Ministry”.

I worked together with two other “Church in My City” brothers as they ran the Christians on Campus Club in coordination with Living Stream Ministry and Bibles for America staff for a few years at the community college in the city I used to live in. I know exactly how it works and what is promoted at every on campus and off campus meeting for students. The Living Stream Ministry and The Local Churches. Is it that hard to understand this?

What really disgusted me at the end of those years was the pressure put on the students we had recruited to go to college conferences and FTT.

That experience was one of the last straws for me. I was hoping to help shepherd the students into a better relationship with Jesus, and thus to build the church, and bring glory to Jesus name. Turns out that wasn’t really what Christians on Campus was really about!.

Thank you JJ for sharing your experiences and observations. They seem to be in one accord with many of us here.

The most telling word, here, for me, was "pressure". Students are pressured to go to meetings, at meetings they're pressured to go to conferences, at conferences they're pressured toward the FTT, at the FTT they're pressured to "serve the ministry" and "go full time" as campus recruiters, so that they can apply pressure on others. Is that the gospel.

Thank you JJ for sharing your experiences and observations. They seem to be in one accord with many of us here.

The most telling word, here, for me, was "pressure". Students are pressured to go to meetings, at meetings they're pressured to go to conferences, at conferences they're pressured toward the FTT, at the FTT they're pressured to "serve the ministry" and "go full time" as campus recruiters, so that they can apply pressure on others. Is that the gospel.

During my time in college, I quickly became aware that CoC existed solely as a stepping stone to bring people into the LC, with the intention to eventually get them into the FTT.

I ignored my concerns about it until I had to lie to people aboit what we were doing. It was them I realized that I could no longer participate in CoC.

__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Of course the club secretary has a specific role in the club, such as taking minutes at the annual meeting and ensuring all the paperwork for the club was in order. But I was never asked to do any of that. Instead I was asked to sign some paperwork to make it appear that the club was being led by students, when really it was being led by the full time serving ones.

Yeah I remember in my home locality it was usually a 'mature student' (i.e. a uni student in his 40s) who would fill that role in the club. A leading brother usually, or at the very least, one of the brothers who attended the important 'brothers meeting'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

We (FTTA trainees) were told to ignore the sick and the poor, the widows and orphans, and anyone else who couldn't repay us in this age. Instead go after the "good building materials", especially Caucasian college students. Is that the gospel.

No, I don't believe it is. We were told the same thing. Before I joined the LCM I had a thing, a 'little ministry' you could call it with the homeless in my city. They all knew me and many of them had gotten saved through me. They'd pray with me every time we saw each other and one guy really experienced the Lord and started groping my back looking for wings. But all that was to go in the rubbish bin when I joined the LCM because these homeless were not fit for attending the meetings, let alone the carrying out of the work. I was disappointed but obedient and soon forgot about the homeless brothers, focusing on the campus students.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clever sister

I'll say Australia/New Zealand. The practises in the 2 countries are similar, and both countries campus works led to the FTTH.

Yeah I graduated from FTTH. You'll probably know who I am now lol, not many FTTH grads by the name of Brad.

During my time in college, I quickly became aware that CoC existed solely as a stepping stone to bring people into the LC, with the intention to eventually get them into the FTT.

I ignored my concerns about it until I had to lie to people aboit what we were doing. It was them I realized that I could no longer participate in CoC.

I once had a conversation with a friend that wanted to join CoC on campus for an outreach event. I told them I didn’t really see any issues with that as long as they were preaching the gospel and pointing those to Christ and not the LSM. They didn’t end up going because they felt that would cause an issue with the friends in the CoC. And this was one that was for the LSM church at that time!

In all my time with the “fallen, Christless Christianity” I’ve never experienced anyone recruiting for a denominaiton. Never. I’ve never heard a Baptist preach baptist-ism, nor a Methodist, Methodist-ism, a Presbyterian, non denominational, Lutheran, as it goes...

This division that the LSM churches and Witness Lee use to deride my fellow siblings in Christ is the very thing that sets them apart from Christianity. It could even be the root cause to many of the issues within the LSM, both historically and today.

__________________Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

I once had a conversation with a friend that wanted to join CoC on campus for an outreach event. I told them I didn’t really see any issues with that as long as they were preaching the gospel and pointing those to Christ and not the LSM. They didn’t end up going because they felt that would cause an issue with the friends in the CoC. And this was one that was for the LSM church at that time!

In all my time with the “fallen, Christless Christianity” I’ve never experienced anyone recruiting for a denominaiton. Never. I’ve never heard a Baptist preach baptist-ism, nor a Methodist, Methodist-ism, a Presbyterian, non denominational, Lutheran, as it goes...

This division that the LSM churches and Witness Lee use to deride my fellow siblings in Christ is the very thing that sets them apart from Christianity. It could even be the root cause to many of the issues within the LSM, both historically and today.

I think that in the minds of so many of those in the LCM, they equate pointing people to LSM material with pointing people to Christ, in fact they think it's the only path to Christ. So their recruitment efforts, however disingenuous those efforts might be, get rationalized in that way.

When we had Bible studies, the full-time brothers told any newcomers who brought their choice version of the Bible that it was best for everyone to use the RcV, so that everyone could "follow along" with the Bible study. It is things like that really nauseated me.

__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

I think that in the minds of so many of those in the LCM, they equate pointing people to LSM material with pointing people to Christ, in fact they think it's the only path to Christ. So their recruitment efforts, however disingenuous those efforts might be, get rationalized in that way.

When we had Bible studies, the full-time brothers told any newcomers who brought their choice version of the Bible that it was best for everyone to use the RcV, so that everyone could "follow along" with the Bible study. It is things like that really nauseated me.

In my experience they were open to us using other versions. They definitely held to the Recovery Version and suggested people to use it, but they never put any pressure on me not to use my King James Bible.

__________________
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I was disappointed but obedient and soon forgot about the homeless brothers, focusing on the campus students..

The power of the gospel is to reach the sick, the deaf, the blind, the poor, the lame. Not just the "good building material". It could hardly be more plain. And it could hardly be more disregarded than in the LSM churches and "work".

The LSM is afraid of society's detritus because it would unmask their powerlessness. Why do you think they put so much pressure on people? Because they have no power. The fact that they must manipulate, deceive and cajole naive college students to make disciples is proof to me of their utter lack of divine reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistantStar

they never put any pressure on me not to use my King James Bible.

But that you never let it go marked you as not fully "one" with the programme; that you subsequently left further cements their suspicions that you didn't "get the vision".

But that you never let it go marked you as not fully "one" with the programme; that you subsequently left further cements their suspicions that you didn't "get the vision".

These people are deeply alienated from their fellow believers.

You have a point. In spite of usually being "accepted" in some sense, I never truly felt as though I was one with them.
It's kinda confusing. On the one hand I did feel a part of them, always feeling accepted in the big and small meetings, and they often went out of their way to bring me there (giving me lifts and so). And yet I recall that one time, sitting at my very small flatroom, alone, and seeing that they uploaded a video to YouTube. I saw friends I know in that video, and I just thought "Why didn't they invite me?". It's kinda petty, but it bothered me. Why wasn't I even aware of this?

By this point I've been with them for over a year. I left shortly afterwards.

Edit: No I'm confused. It is this video, but it was my first year of college. By the time it was uploaded I've been with them for only a couple of months, but many people in that video, like one good friend, was also new.

__________________
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I watched a bit of the video. A few people running around holding signs. I gave up.

At whose behest did they run around holding signs? Theirs or another's? And by running around holding signs, and waving at the camera, are they selling automobiles or whatnot? No way to tell.

Perhaps later it became "godly" but by then I'd given up. My attention span is too short I'm afraid.

The brilliance of the gospel is in it's simplicity. It needs no CoC, no BfA, no DCP, no LSM. It is the pure fire of God's love reaching us in Jesus Christ. It is our faith in the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on the third day, showing that this was indeed the Son of God whose blood makes us all clean. The spotless Lamb of God is the reigning Lion of Judah. It is so simple.

It was this gospel that spread in waves across the USA and even the globe 50 years ago, that brought in young people by the thousands, even tens of thousands. This gospel got co-opted by people like Witness Lee, and by the time he set his predatory family on the gospel (Timothy and Daystar, Philip and the Office) it frustrated and deadened the gospel impetus. Then we had various machinations (the New Way, Vital Groups, Christians on Campus) to try and resurrect the gospel. But the gospel needs no resurrection. It is the power of resurrection, the power of salvation to all who believe. It is simple. Don't mess it up. Let it flow.

Any controversy over the name is not the reason the group is not named simply CoC. The group believes that the "real name" of the group is "just Christians". Why then do you expect the group to name themselves something else on campus just because everyone else does? They are being consistent with their beliefs.

You should expect transparency like "everyone else does" bc it's the honest and straightforward thing to do. What are your thought's on why they would call themselves something other than the group name- the Lord's Recovery or The church in (random locality)? Yes, they're "Christians on campus" - they actually are! But why are they even saying that? Why not just call yourself the actual name of the group?

If other Christians besides ones who are employed by or attend the local church were organizing this club then CoC would seem acceptable as a description of the group based on varied backgrounds of Christians coming together to form this club.

We both know that's not the case. The only people involved in running this club are local church full-timers or members. Clearly, the tactic of a lack of transparency being used as a recruiting tactic is not hitting home for you- even though its a common practice with other groups when recruiting.

Transparency about who your group is made up of is the honest and straightforward way. As a former part of this group (admittedly I just worked with them several times) I was taught how to "inoculate" people against Witness Lee.

Are you still keeping your stance that they just called themselves that bc "they're Christians and they happen to be on campus?"

Being in a bubble has its benefits sometimes- I get it. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow and at one point, I shared your mindset. I hope your eyes, and others, will be opened someday to the truth behind CoC and their less than honest/healthy practices.

You should expect transparency like "everyone else does" bc it's the honest and straightforward thing to do. What are your thought's on why they would call themselves something other than the group name- the Lord's Recovery or The church in (random locality)? Yes, they're "Christians on campus" - they actually are! But why are they even saying that? Why not just call yourself the actual name of the group?

Why don't the individuals who work in para-church organizations on campus declare their true denominational affiliations? This is a form of deception where newly converted students are deceived to think that Christianity is one unified body of believers but when they must decide on which church to attend each Sunday they find out they are all different denominations.

The simple reason is that "the Lord's recovery" (lower case r) and "The Church in .." are not names but descriptors and to take a name would be to de-name-iate, which the church avoids.

So it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to use a name which goes against their core beliefs. This is a perfectly valid reason for them identifying as "just Christians".

Some have claimed that they try to hide something but why would the church try to hide who they are?

You remind me of denominational Christians who are just not satisfied with the answer "Christian" when they ask about your religion. They will ask again "yes, but what type of Christian, where do you worship?". It is not that they are trying to hide anything, they just don't have anything to hide (no secret denominational affiliation ,etc).

Remember that the idea of a denomination called "the Lord's Recovery" is the narrative of this forum, not the real world or the real local church. You are asking people to be transparent about something for which there is nothing to be transparent about.

Why don't the individuals who work in para-church organizations on campus declare their true denominational affiliations? This is a form of deception where newly converted students are deceived to think that Christianity is one unified body of believers but when they must decide on which church to attend each Sunday they find out they are all different denominations.

The simple reason is that "the Lord's recovery" (lower case r) and "The Church in .." are not names but descriptors and to take a name would be to de-name-iate, which the church avoids.

So it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to use a name which goes against their core beliefs. This is a perfectly valid reason for them identifying as "just Christians".

Some have claimed that they try to hide something but why would the church try to hide who they are?

You remind me of denominational Christians who are just not satisfied with the answer "Christian" when they ask about your religion. They will ask again "yes, but what type of Christian, where do you worship?". It is not that they are trying to hide anything, they just don't have anything to hide (no secret denominational affiliation ,etc).

Remember that the idea of a denomination called "the Lord's Recovery" is the narrative of this forum, not the real world or the real local church. You are asking people to be transparent about something for which there is nothing to be transparent about.

To my knowledge, the common practice of any church campus ministry is stating the organization you’re associate with. At least that’s how it is on this campus- aside from CoC. You’re very good at missing the point I’m attempting to make. Maybe I’m not being clear or maybe you’re doing it intentionally. Either way, the point I was making was that it’s a common recruitment tactic with cults to have “recruiting arms” with different names other than the one the group is actually called.

To my knowledge, the common practice of any church campus ministry is stating the organization you’re associate with. At least that’s how it is on this campus- aside from CoC. You’re very good at missing the point I’m attempting to make. Maybe I’m not being clear or maybe you’re doing it intentionally. Either way, the point I was making was that it’s a common recruitment tactic with cults to have “recruiting arms” with different names other than the one the group is actually called.

That may be the case for churches that are actually man-made organisations, but for a real church the group is actually called Christians. They are associated with the Lord Jesus. They are on campus. It's a common tactic for denominations to hide behind para-church organisations on campus, to hide their true denominational affiliations.

That may be the case for churches that are actually man-made organisations, but for a real church the group is actually called Christians. They are associated with the Lord Jesus. They are on campus. It's a common tactic for denominations to hide behind para-church organisations on campus, to hide their true denominational affiliations.

Evangelical,

You need to hear this man. You’re living in a fantasy land shaped by the LSM and your own decieved thoughts. I don’t expect you to take any care to my words, and that is fine. But you can’t plead ignorance of reality on that day.

__________________Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

You need to hear this man. You’re living in a fantasy land shaped by the LSM and your own decieved thoughts. I don’t expect you to take any care to my words, and that is fine. But you can’t plead ignorance of reality on that day.

It's near Disney Land where Living Stream Ministry office is located. We rarely see the difference between them.

It's a common tactic for denominations to hide behind para-church organisations on campus, to hide their true denominational affiliations.

Which denomination hides behind Intervarsity? Which denomination hides behind the Navigators? Which denomination hides behind Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as Cru? When I was in junior college I was a member of the Baptist Student Union. It's the LSM local churches of Lee that hide behind the name "Christians on Campus". Dear E, you have been in your Anaheim LSM rat hole for too long. It's long past time for you to retire.

That may be the case for churches that are actually man-made organisations, but for a real church the group is actually called Christians. They are associated with the Lord Jesus. They are on campus. It's a common tactic for denominations to hide behind para-church organisations on campus, to hide their true denominational affiliations.

Ah! So you believe that the local church isn't a man-made organization and is allowed to use the same recruiting tactics that cult's use by excluding the name of the party they're associated with- but they're exempt from this being a deceptive practice because they're a "real church group of Christians."

It's near Disney Land where Living Stream Ministry office is located. We rarely see the difference between them.

Threatening people's realities and often identities results in erratic logic. Even though that's a known fact- that could be argued by them that they're the "exception to the rule" bc they're not a man-made organization (even though a publishing company makes the rules for them) and they're the real church or real group of believers.

Disillusioned and sad, yes. But, I'm sympathetic bc I used to be in those shoes and my family is. You can't argue logic when you're so addicted to the lifestyle your biases get in the way.

some of the most burdensome memories on my conscience is the ways that we willingly misrepresented our group to fellow students. I'm glad many saw the way out, and I hope they've forgiven us.

I also regret having done that, but thankfully in most cases, the newcomers were more keen to what was going on than those of use who were running the club. They realized we were a front for something, even though we were unwilling to admit that ourselves.

__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Which denomination hides behind Intervarsity? Which denomination hides behind the Navigators? Which denomination hides behind Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as Cru? When I was in junior college I was a member of the Baptist Student Union. It's the LSM local churches of Lee that hide behind the name "Christians on Campus". Dear E, you have been in your Anaheim LSM rat hole for too long. It's long past time for you to retire.

Why don't those groups use their REAL denominational name and reveal who they really are associated with. For example is there a denomination called Navigators? Is every person in that group a nondenom or do they attend some kind of dename-iation?

I know for fact that most workers in these groups attend some denomination every Sunday. As a student I would like to know their true affiliations especially if they are catholics or Mormons on a Sunday. They appear a cohesive body as Navigators or whatever but Sunday reveals they are still fragmented and divided with some denominational affiliation they do not tell students about.

Ah! So you believe that the local church isn't a man-made organization and is allowed to use the same recruiting tactics that cult's use by excluding the name of the party they're associated with- but they're exempt from this being a deceptive practice because they're a "real church group of Christians."

There is no denomination or group to be associated with. You seem to struggle with simple concepts. Probably your brain would explode if you lived during the time of Paul. You might demand Paul reveal his true denominational affiliation before he talks to students!

Which denomination hides behind Intervarsity? Which denomination hides behind the Navigators? Which denomination hides behind Campus Crusade for Christ, now known as Cru?

The answer is "I don't know", because both organizations do not reveal clearly.

This is from their respective wikipedia pages:

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA is an inter-denominational, evangelical Christian campus ministry founded in 1941, working with students and faculty on U.S. college and university campuses.

The Navigators is a worldwide Christian para-church organization headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado

The term inter-denominational means "relating to more than one religious denomination". They do not state clearly which denominations they are including. Mormons? Catholics? Russian orthodox? Pentecostal?

The term "para-church" means "alongside the church". Again ,they are not clear about which churches they are "alongside".

On the negative side is what was stated above in the definition: parachurch ministries are usually independent of church oversight. These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Biblically it is the local church, not inter-church or para-church organizations which God has equipped to do the work on campuses.

As far as I know, Christians on Campus is the only local church presence on campuses that would satisfy Ephesians 4:11-12 and 1 Timothy 3:15. This is because they are directly tied to the local church whereas others are only inter or para church organizations with no clear indication of where they stand in relation to the wider Body of Christ.

These groups are also not equipped to "add to the church" Acts 2:47 after making converts.

As revealed by one intervarsity advice website on "how to find a church:

“How am I supposed to find the church that God has in mind for me?” There’s no exact answer, but there are a few actions you can take.

In the bible do we see new converts asking questions like "How am I supposed to find the church that God has in mind for me?" Of course not. There was only one church, and God only had one church in mind for all believers, just as there is only one Lord, Body, Spirit etc.

Furthermore, their advice is dreadful as they do not encourage asking God but asking Mr Internet:

"When I started college, I sought a big non-denominational church, but God surprised me with a mid-sized Presbyterian church. Each time, I began by asking myself, “Which place is most like me?” Then I progressed to asking God, “OK, fine, which place is most like what I need?”"

This sounds a lot like church shopping doesn't it? This advice reflects the general self-catering advice in Christianity that a "church is for me, my needs, wants and desires". But the bible is clear that God is and we should be "for the church".

Again, the early church believers did not have to wrestle with such questions, let alone ask God for a particular church, let alone expect God to provide them a church which is best for their own needs. Invarsity has shown that they do not understand the concept of the local church nor God's plan and desire to use the local church in building up the Body of Christ. Converts made through their ministry are left clue-less as to which church to attend on a Sunday and for the rest of their life after leaving college. Their advice will only build up the local denominations which cater to people's self-serving needs, and hence continue the plethora of "church flavors" available to choose from. I would not be surprised if some of the local denominations contribute financially to these organizations, with the expectation that these organizations will, in kind, return the favor by directing students to them on a Sunday. I also think that the volunteers and leaders in these organizations are often pastors or youth pastors themselves, attached to some local denomination, which will bias their advice and doctrine towards that particular denomination. They typically hide their denominational affiliations while working on the campuses, which makes it appear to students that Christianity is one big unified body. Yet, each Sunday, every volunteer or worker in these organizations will disperse to attend their respective preferred denominations, proving the divided reality.

From my interactions with the different evangelical para-church groups on campuses none are functioning to send members to one evangelical denomination to the exclusion of other evangelical denominations. All the para-church groups recommend that their members should also be members of a genuine local church, not just a LSM associated local church.

I'm sure that the JW, Morman, and other non-evangelical college groups refer there students to JW and Morman chuches; just like the LSM Christians on Campus refer students to LSM Local Churches.

From my interactions with the different evangelical para-church groups on campuses none are functioning to send members to one evangelical denomination to the exclusion of other evangelical denominations. All the para-church groups recommend that their members should also be members of a genuine local church, not just a LSM associated local church.

I'm sure that the JW, Morman, and other non-evangelical college groups refer there students to JW and Morman chuches; just like the LSM Christians on Campus refer students to LSM Local Churches.

Evangelical organizations will refer to evangelical churches. Evangelicals surely believe that only evangelical churches are genuine churches (not Catholic etc).
Do these evangelical organizations ever refer students to Catholic churches? If they were baptists or presbyterians themselves would they ever?

As we see from HERn's post, the meaning of "inter-church" and "para-church" refers only to evangelical churches. Now it is becoming apparent that these inter and para-church organizations are selective about which churches they support (are they truly local, therefore?).

In reviewing the websites of these organizations, I find no indication that they are primarily evangelical or support evangelical churches primarily. For example, the Navigators website has no indication that they are evangelical and not Catholic.

The subject of this thread is "Deceptions on Campus", specifically "Christians on Campus", which is the college campus outreach of the Local Church of Witness Lee. The Local Church has a very tainted reputation among many evangelical/orthodox Christians, especially in the US. And since college kids are generally fully immersed in this "google age" we live in, when they google "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" they will probably shy away from attending any Christians on Campus event.

If these LC members would be honest, they would name their campus outreach "members of the Local Church of Witness Lee on campus to promote and propagate the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee". Christians on Campus is not a para-church organization, at least not in the sense of the great majority of college campus ministries.
-

__________________Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

The local church does not call itself "the Local Church of Witness Lee" so it's unlikely it will ever be called that. It would be equivalent to asking the Navigators to call themselves "The navigator evangelical para-organization that tries to convert Catholics on-campus"

When I google "Witness Lee"

wikipedia is first - it is reasonable to the local churches, not too harsh
gotquestions second - they are reasonable, not too harsh, even supportive, saying they are a "solid orthodox group of believers"
ministrybooks.org is third
"Cult watchers reconsider" is fourth - this might dispel any rumors that it is a cult.

When I google "Local Church", a number of wikipedia articles are hit and then localchurches.org, a global directory of local churches.

All in all, the top google searches are favorable to the local churches. It's a Google miracle!

After clicking "next" 10 times, I gave up, no mention of this forum. So students will not be finding this "deceptions on campus" thread, most likely.

This is hilarious. It's like watching someone unfamiliar with how the internet can actually work...
No one except such a person, and especially not a college student, would be so general in their search to find out information...perhaps as a start, but certainly not clicking ten pages into a search looking for something specific or more detailed...
I googled Local Church Controversy (much more realistic and focused -who knew the internet was capable of such a thing?), and came up with a lot of not so favorable results.
People who want to find info can find it easily, and no one searches so generically/ aimlessly for very long.
Finding info about the LC and or WL, lawsuits, CoC , etc is incredibly easy.
I'd strongly disagree with your last line. . . Unless of course everyone searched like you, which thankfully no one does.

Well I used the search terms "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" because these are the terms which UntoHim suggested college kids might use:

And since college kids are generally fully immersed in this "google age" we live in, when they google "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" they will probably shy away from attending any Christians on Campus event.

It might help if you read a little further down before jumping right in. It would save you some embarrassment.

You also claimed that a search like "Local church controversy" is "much more realistic and focused". I disagree that looking for controversy is the first thing a college kid or any reasonable person would do if they had never heard of the local church or Witness Lee before. UntoHim's search terms are more realistic. Still, if I google "local church controversy", it returns wikipedia links that my searches also returned (students can read about controversies from the wikipedia pages I referred to in my previous post), the contendingforthefaith.org website turns up which refutes much of the negativity, and clicking "next" a few times still does not return a hit for this forum where a college kid might be saved from the "LC cult".

The third top hit for your search term is "Dr. J. Gordon Melton— An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and “The God-Men” Controversy" - are you really considering this to be "a lot of not so favorable results"? A college kid might read this by expert Melton "Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion" and conclude in favor of the local churches.

The subject of this thread is "Deceptions on Campus", specifically "Christians on Campus", which is the college campus outreach of the Local Church of Witness Lee. The Local Church has a very tainted reputation among many evangelical/orthodox Christians, especially in the US. And since college kids are generally fully immersed in this "google age" we live in, when they google "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" they will probably shy away from attending any Christians on Campus event.

If these LC members would be honest, they would name their campus outreach "members of the Local Church of Witness Lee on campus to promote and propagate the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee". Christians on Campus is not a para-church organization, at least not in the sense of the great majority of college campus ministries.
-

Even if they just said "We are affiliated with The Church in [City], but welcome Christians of all backgrounds" it would be much more honest than what they say now.

To potentially save you even more embarrassment, it might be helpful to understand a little about how search engines work. I'm no expert, but I do know that search engines, such as Google, are optimized. That is, to get the most accurate information, you need to know what the search engine/s are optimized to look for, then optimize your web site for the best match to suit your purposes. So, how a search keyword and/or term result is ranked may have more to do with the configuration of the target website itself than the keyword/s you type in. Search for: SEO or Search Engine Optimization.

You may notice that advertisements seem to float to the top. That's because advertisers pay to be moved to the head of the ranking line. The pro-Local Church sites may be optimized to the hilt, while other sites with lower rankings may need some tweaking. So it would seem that all searches are not created equal because of the SEO and the website itself and less to do with actual content. So analytics of "hits" may produce skewed results when arguing to prove a point.

This all shows that UntoHim's concern is not warranted. I am not too concerned about what college kids might find Googling. As I have found, the vast majority of hits about general searches for Witness Lee and the local churches are positive or refute negative claims. The reason why that is the case does not concern me.

Another consideration is that college kids these days are not really Googlers anyway. They are more Twitterers and are used to reading one line sentences, I doubt they read past the first few hits that Google returns,or actually click on a link and read it in detail. It would require a certain amount of effort to find information about Daystar for example or any particular example that might be discussed on here.

All in all, Google is not helping college students to be saved from the "LC cult", and neither is this forum if it does not show up in the first page of a Google search.

This all shows that UntoHim's concern is not warranted. I am not too concerned about what college kids might find Googling. As I have found, the vast majority of hits about general searches for Witness Lee and the local churches are positive or refute negative claims. The reason why that is the case does not concern me.

Another consideration is that college kids these days are not really Googlers anyway. They are more Twitterers and are used to reading one line sentences, I doubt they read past the first few hits that Google returns,or actually click on a link and read it in detail. It would require a certain amount of effort to find information about Daystar for example or any particular example that might be discussed on here.

All in all, Google is not helping college students to be saved from the "LC cult", and neither is this forum if it does not show up in the first page of a Google search.

If that's what you believe, then why are you wasting your time posting on this forum?

Well I used the search terms "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" because these are the terms which UntoHim suggested college kids might use:

And since college kids are generally fully immersed in this "google age" we live in, when they google "Witness Lee" or "Local Church" they will probably shy away from attending any Christians on Campus event.

It might help if you read a little further down before jumping right in. It would save you some embarrassment.

You also claimed that a search like "Local church controversy" is "much more realistic and focused". I disagree that looking for controversy is the first thing a college kid or any reasonable person would do if they had never heard of the local church or Witness Lee before. UntoHim's search terms are more realistic. Still, if I google "local church controversy", it returns wikipedia links that my searches also returned (students can read about controversies from the wikipedia pages I referred to in my previous post), the contendingforthefaith.org website turns up which refutes much of the negativity, and clicking "next" a few times still does not return a hit for this forum where a college kid might be saved from the "LC cult".

The third top hit for your search term is "Dr. J. Gordon Melton— An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and “The God-Men” Controversy" - are you really considering this to be "a lot of not so favorable results"? A college kid might read this by expert Melton "Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion" and conclude in favor of the local churches.

Embarrassment? Do you feel embarrassment when you say things that make sense? I do not, and the false care in your snide remark betrays an insecurity that must be growing within you as you read more here...

Once again, you don't understand how the internet works. I admitted that someone might start with the general search terms that you quoted from UntoHim. But those are just a start, as I said before. Not everyone searches like you do, thankfully. Websites have links to related topics. You don't have to go back to Google and click next (which would just give you more related to your initial search, and the further you go by clicking next the more tenuous the relation is...though I suspect you know this). Links open up worlds that initial/broad Google searches never show.

Your response is a perfect example of the type of deception practiced the the LC and CoC.

Be a little creative in your search. You might actually find things. You don't seem to be too internet savvy, and I'd argue even if people had never heard of Witness Lee or the LC or CoC, negative information is not hard to find.

Your naive reply reminds me of why people (usually older though not always) get caught doing things online. They don't understand how connected things are, how nothing is ever more than a few clicks away. And they can't imagine how anyone would be able to find them.

Embarrassment? Do you feel embarrassment when you say things that make sense? I do not, and the false care in your snide remark betrays an insecurity that must be growing within you as you read more here...

Once again, you don't understand how the internet works. I admitted that someone might start with the general search terms that you quoted from UntoHim. But those are just a start, as I said before. Not everyone searches like you do, thankfully. Websites have links to related topics. You don't have to go back to Google and click next (which would just give you more related to your initial search, and the further you go by clicking next the more tenuous the relation is...though I suspect you know this). Links open up worlds that initial/broad Google searches never show.

Your response is a perfect example of the type of deception practiced the the LC and CoC.

Be a little creative in your search. You might actually find things. You don't seem to be too internet savvy, and I'd argue even if people had never heard of Witness Lee or the LC or CoC, negative information is not hard to find.

Your naive reply reminds me of why people (usually older though not always) get caught doing things online. They don't understand how connected things are, how nothing is ever more than a few clicks away. And they can't imagine how anyone would be able to find them.

FYI I was not trying to find specific and more detailed things, I was only inputting the search terms that UntoHim suggested and seeing what resulted.
Basically you have explained that if you add more search terms to Google (such as the word "controversy") you get more specific results. This is obvious and not exactly a ground-breaking discovery.

I disagree that it is easy to find negative information. Even if I type in more specific terms such as Local Church Cult, I get hits to some websites such as "Why do some people accuse you of being a cult?" on localchurchesfaq.org. Clearly the articles which are positive and refute the negativity are in the top of the Google searches (so maybe their algorithms work afterall).

Your failure to realize this which you could have if you read the post below mine (to which I was replying to) shows you lack the ability to comprehend what you are reading and synthesize, which is typical of the younger generation.

By the way the use of the "next" button is a valid way to use Google (why do they provide a next button?) - sometimes what you want is not in the first page but in the second or third - the younger generation lacks the patient to be able to trawl through a lot of data - they rarely read to the end of the page and end up twittering their friends instead for the solution.

I demonstrated that if someone used the search terms that UntoHim suggested, they would not find this website which might "save" them from the "LC cult". Apparently Google is not smart enough to know that. Or maybe it is? Maybe Google's complex algorithm with 200 variables knows that the LC is not a cult.

FYI I was not trying to find specific and more detailed things, I was only inputting the search terms that UntoHim suggested and seeing what resulted....

I should take my own advice from another thread and ignore you in the future. You're intentionally obfuscating. Like I said, your posts are perfect example of the kind of deception practiced by the LC/ CoC.

I should take my own advice from another thread and ignore you in the future. You're intentionally obfuscating. Like I said, your posts are perfect example of the kind of deception practiced by the LC/ CoC.

Quitting so easily?

There's no deception. Every one of my statements are factual, I can name the Google links returned by name, proving their positive feeling towards the local churches.

For example, one of the top links for a search on "is the local church a cult" is this one:

Are the Local Churches a Cult? - Christian Research Institute

which says "To begin with, the local churches are not a cult..."

I think what happened is that you thought you'd make fun of my technical abilities instead of reading the post to which I was responding to and why I only used relevant search terms. Now you are embarrassed because you can't think of any counter-argument to my facts so decide to quit. If you did have anything of substance to refute my claims, you would have posted them in your first post instead of making fun of my Googling methods.

Quitting so easily? There's no deception. Every one of my statements are factual, I can name the Google links returned by name, proving their positive feeling towards the local churches. For example, one of the top links for a search on "is the local church a cult" is this one:
Are the Local Churches a Cult? - Christian Research Institute which says "To begin with, the local churches are not a cult..."

__________________“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan.

There is no denomination or group to be associated with. You seem to struggle with simple concepts. Probably your brain would explode if you lived during the time of Paul. You might demand Paul reveal his true denominational affiliation before he talks to students!

Woah! Calm down. You're entitled to your opinion and you're obviously standing your ground but I assure you that I don't struggle with simple concepts! My point is valid because there IS a group to be associated with CoC due to the fact that ONLY full-timers and local church members run CoC.

If there were Christians from denominations or other Christians groups involved with CoC- then calling themselves CoC would make sense! Then, your argument that there is no specific group or denomination associated with them would apply! Please don't attack my logic or reasoning skills when you're (respectfully) coming to conclusions that don't add up based on what the situation is with CoC.

CoC is run by full-timers, who are adults...with college age kids in the local church assisting them. There are NO other groups who are included in heading up CoC and I seriously doubt they would welcome them or welcome any other material, other than the Bible, in CoC meetings besides LSM material. They are clearly using exclusive LSM material only, and only run by members in the local church. So, respectfully, you're incorrect to say that there is no distinct group CoC is associated with.

Also, I'm agreeing to disagree that they should be called CoC (as it's a common cult recruiting tactic to have recruiting groups with a different name than the group) and believe they should be called "the local church in <said locality> on campus" (or some equivalent that includes the local church name) because although the "work" is different- the people running it are one and the same.

Also, you think my head would explode if I lived in the age of Paul? Wow, well I'll have to agree to disagree again! By the grace of God, Paul saw religion for what it was.

What is the goal of CoC? I feel I have a pretty good idea but I think we should all think about that one....

I guess I have been a "lurker" for 2 years now.
December 2015 was when I first visited your site.
Went through a depression but I knew what I was reading was true.
I have not been active in the church for a few years, but still know a few people and have gone to a couple of meetings in the last couple of years.

I remember certain instances starting from when I was around 15, where I started realizing something wasn't right. But I was so scared to even type something into google. We were taught that it was "damaging" to look up anything online. We were strictly advised against it.
We were fear mongered into staying into the church life "no matter what."
I didn't like the whole not hearing the other people's side. And the control and disdain for those who wanted to know. It was like a toddler clamping their hands over their ears and saying "lalalalala" (or the church life version "oh Lord Jesus") So annoying and sooooo FAKE!!! drove me nutso. haha.

I disagree that it is easy to find negative information. Even if I type in more specific terms such as Local Church Cult, I get hits to some websites such as "Why do some people accuse you of being a cult?" on localchurchesfaq.org. Clearly the articles which are positive and refute the negativity are in the top of the Google searches (so maybe their algorithms work afterall).
Your failure to realize this which you could have if you read the post below mine (to which I was replying to) shows you lack the ability to comprehend what you are reading and synthesize, which is typical of the younger generation.
. . . the younger generation lacks the patient to be able to trawl through a lot of data - they rarely read to the end of the page and end up twittering their friends instead for the solution. .

Evangelical, could your statements be more contradictory to your username? You're clearly trying to instigate people and your generalizations about the youth are just demeaning. I respect others opinions and even opposing ones on this page but you're just rude. While you're at it, next time you google search results on the local church, why don't you look up the definition of a troll.

"cults don't reveal their "true" identity"
"The local churches don't reveal their true identity" (I have stated over and over, there is no true identity necessary to be revealed other than "Christian" - this was good enough for the early church).
"therefore the local churches are a cult"

This is refuted by the CRI's articles and others such as Gotquestions.org which temper any claims they are a cult.

As I have shown in my previous posts, few para- or inter church organizations accurately and precisely states their denominational affiliations and resources that they use. Yet the leadership are often from a one or a few denominations such as EVANGELICAL denominations ONLY (no Catholics, please).

This is really no different to the practice of the Christians on Campus so I think we can dispel with the idea of cult-like practice if we consider these facts about what the other groups are doing.

This is refuted by the CRI's articles and others such as Gotquestions.org which temper any claims they are a cult.

You don’t want to bring up CRI’s credibility on this site. There’s a lot of discussion about the credibility of that organization. Actually, the DCP is currently trying to sue Harvest House bc they do include the local church in their recent book of cults. I’m assuming you didn’t know that.

Also, no- I did not say that because CoC don’t reveal their true identity- that it makes them a cult. Really? Absolutely not. There is a long list of reasons and that reason is almost in a category of “things cults do”, not “reasons it’s a cult.” And I disagree with your argument that few churches reveal their affiliations with their campus work! At least not at the college campus I live by! If you have a good reputation- it’s good advertising! If you don’t- it can scare people off. Normal churches have nothing to lose by including their name. Cults do.

This is refuted by the CRI's articles and others such as Gotquestions.org which temper any claims they are a cult.

Aside from CRI not addressing the real issues in their article and LSM wining and dining Hank Hanegraff and that whole debacle...even got questions.org says because there are so many Christians that DO believe it’s a cult to “use the upmost caution and discernment when choosing to attend the local church.” If you can find a better source for credibility- please tell us! Also, it’s important to know the different between a Christian and non Christian cult. I don’t know about the LC being doctrinally a cult but it definitely uses all the cult practices- or most of them!

Your arguments essentially reduce to :
"cults don't reveal their "true" identity"
"The local churches don't reveal their true identity" (I have stated over and over, there is no true identity necessary to be revealed other than "Christian" - this was good enough for the early church).

Christian Fellowship

CF is the [local] branch of TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship), which in turn is affiliated with IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) – connecting us with a national and international Christian community.

From the local university's website. They aren't hiding their link to Evangelicalism.

CF is the [local] branch of TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship), which in turn is affiliated with IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) – connecting us with a national and international Christian community.

From the local university's website. They aren't hiding their link to Evangelicalism.

Another point, we know for a fact that CoC is ONLY run by local church members. There may be legitimate reasons for a group to call themselves Christians on campus if it was a “mixed bag” of Christians with different backgrounds.

You don’t want to bring up CRI’s credibility on this site. There’s a lot of discussion about the credibility of that organization. ...

I remember being in a meeting when it was annouced that CRI had changed their position on the LC. Copies of the "We Were Wrong" issue were passed out and we were told triumphantly, "show your friends and family!"

It struck me as strange that suddenly Christless Christianity was to be believed! They were even needed to prove the legitimacy of the LC. The appeal to an authority that was, just moments ago, without the "blessing" was suspicious to say the least.

I remember being in a meeting when it was annouced that CRI had changed their position on the LC. Copies of the "We Were Wrong" issue were passed out and we were told triumphantly, "show your friends and family!"

It struck me as strange that suddenly Christless Christianity was to be believed! They were even needed to prove the legitimacy of the LC. The appeal to an authority that was, just moments ago, without the "blessing" was suspicious to say the least.

I know. I don't think there's necessarily PROOF that it was 100% a PR stunt from LC leadership...but where there's smoke- there's fire. And there's a lot of smoke!

Allegedly, the CRI article didn't address all the topics of their original claims. It's almost not relevant though bc the LC has many orthodox teachings. I would even say that MOST are orthodox. So you can argue all day about which doctrines in the LC make them a cult but that's just addressing half of the criteria when distinguishing whether or not a group is a cult. PRACTICES can also make you a cult. There IS such a thing as a Christian cult, this is something most Christian scholars believe and teach! Even if some of the doctrines are questionable, there is no doubt that they use many of the "trademark cult practices" in various degrees. There's a lot of info on this site or online about what those are. You don't get to be a Christian group and use cult practices, then get mad and sue people for calling you a cult when you're choosing to act like one. Who cares if the doctrine is "orthodox" if you're controlling and damaging your members and creating an environment that breeds spiritual abuse and exploits its members? You can "say" whatever you want and still have terrible practices!

Anyways, about CRI...nobody KNOWS the truth except those involved and God. There is enough "smoke" though to question CRI and not necessarily take their word at face value. It is also the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. It's no secret that H.H. was "clearing" the names of several aberrant groups, not just the LC. He had released similar "pardons" to other groups, one was a Christian biker group that wanted to be "gangsters for Jesus." Is it just a coincidence that CRI was profiting from selling the "We were wrong" article to the local churches (they weren't free!) and that all the sudden localities were not only praying, but sending money to support his "Bible answer man endevours?" You have to remember, the more popular that radio show gets, the more popular he becomes, the more books he can sell. If H.H. were IN the local church, they would have probably criticized him (at the very least) for being "ambitious" by selling his own Christian books but that's easy to overlook when Christianity (which ironically they claim is fallen, dead, and POOR POOR POOR) will vindicate them. Sure, CRI is profiting too but that's not the reason they're vindicating the LC, right? Who knows. It's something to think about even if you can't prove it. When you follow the money, many times things become clear. Maybe it was all genuine too, but like I said- there's enough "smoke" to look at it critically. Enough "smoke" that I don't think the local churches should be hanging their hat on that article! Of course, I'm sure so many (like I was) are unaware of the controversy bc the LC leadership isn't going to tell them about it and they don't dare to go online for fear of being poisoned. They're right but not in that way- they'll be poisoned in their ability to continue living in a cult! Ha! Ok, back to the "smoke" around CRI/Hank Hanegraff....

All this is online and easy to watch/read about if you take the time (google searches should be sufficient). There are podcasts from apologetics in the Christian community and videos on youtube from former employees of CRI describing how H.H. financially profited from "clearing" the air on whether or not certain groups were a cult. They also talk about CRI being less respected as a Christian apologetic resource compared to what it had been in the past. Many of them admired Dr. Walter Martin and being able to work at CRI was their "dream job" as an apologetic. They found themselves disappointed with the new leader, Hank Hanegraff, and describe his education (or lack there of) and the process he used to be able to answer questions quickly on "the Bible answer man" show. The calls were first screened and he had employees help him get the info fast on his screen so he could speak about it. I understand almost anyone would need that but they obviously didn't think he was qualified. He was however, a likable person with a good radio voice. Their opinions on CRI was that it was now "fluff apologetics" that doesn't tackle the really complicated doctrinal issues/debates. I have to say, if you listen to Dr. Walter Martin- he did not hold back. He was a very interesting person to say the least. It's obvious though that he had a strong faith and conviction for apologetic research. I DO have a very hard time believing he (Dr. Walter Martin-original founder of CRI) would have ever released a "We were wrong" article from CRI based on what I've seen and read from his speakings/writings. It's also important to know that the transition from Martin to Hanegraff is also controversial. Many assumed Walter's daughter would take over CRI after his death- and were surprised/some upset about H.H. coming in. From what I've read, Martin never publicly announced who he wanted to succeed him. Whatever happened/should have happened, most would agree that CRI was different after that, understandably- given the two mens's extremely different personalities and goals. For me, the biggest smoking gun with Hank was after hearing how he was meeting with the local churches in California, and the localities were praying for his "Bible answer man show"- there was a huge shift and all the sudden, he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church- (one step away from Catholicism)! Yet, hasn't he sold books and practically based his career off being a Protestant?? That was when I REALLY felt something was off. I don't understand how that isn't extremely hypocritical on behalf of H.H. Later, I saw a video of Christian apologetics discussing this on their youtube channel/podcast and they were talking about how Hank got free radio time with the EOC and that's why he converted. He also made a lot of Protestant leaders mad, there's a lot of discussion on that as well. Who knows, but the shift from one polar opposite of the Lord's Recovery to the Eastern Orthodox church seems SO incredibly extreme that it does warrant questioning his character and his possible motivations throughout his career.

I've also heard H.H. been diagnosed with cancer and that's awful. I don't say all this to speculate or accuse. I would love to see it cleared up- either way though! All I've mentioned can be easily found online and I'd be happy to find those links to everything above if someone can't find them from a google search.

Anyways, this could probably be on another thread but I wanted to bring it up bc the article from CRI was used as "proof" the LC isn't a cult by a forum member. Nothing is that simple though, is it!? This info really helped me see the local church and LSM with their "blended brothers" (AKA "blinded brothers") for who they are. I hope it helps shed some light on the issues for those that are unfamiliar with the controversy. The local church still uses CRI's "We were wrong" article as vindication that they are a legit and sound Christian group but the article isn't something you should take at face value. This wasn't written by an objective third party apologetic research center and they didn't address the issues as you'd expect a Christian research journal would. Please do not take my word for it but look it up yourself! Doctrine is not the only issue that makes you a cult and if anything, I think that article possibly exposed more about what the local church leadership is doing in their attempts to attain a better image to the world. It's all a facade though. Until they change their practices and break ties/requirements between LSM and the localities, loosen the reins of control, humble themselves and admit past wrong-doings, as well as drop the elitist sectarian teachings/practices, they remain the same- a group of Christians with MAINLY orthodox teachings that use many cult tactics and practices. If you don't think that makes them a cult- you're entitled to believe that! But how many cult practices do you get to use and enforce on your members before you're officially a cult? Food for thought!

Another point, we know for a fact that CoC is ONLY run by local church members. There may be legitimate reasons for a group to call themselves Christians on campus if it was a “mixed bag” of Christians with different backgrounds.

2) These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

3) The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Biblically it is the local church, not inter-church or para-church organizations which God has equipped to do the work on campuses. Biblically and historically there is little support for church-independent organizations to be doing the work without oversight from the local church.

On this basis I question their legitimacy to do work on campus if they are not overseen or run by the local church.

CF is the [local] branch of TSCF (Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship), which in turn is affiliated with IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) – connecting us with a national and international Christian community.

From the local university's website. They aren't hiding their link to Evangelicalism.

I accept that, although some are, I believe. There is a Catholic forum discussion topic I found regarding whether the Navigators group is for or against Catholics. They conclude the latter not because of any clear statement from the Navigators but by inference from their stated belief in sola-scriptura. When these groups use the term "Christian community" they clearly are referring to only one particular branch of Christianity - evangelicalism.

As leastofthese incorrectly remarked "These groups are not about growing a local church or a denomination - they're about growing the Body".

To be strictly correct, "they're about growing Evangelicalism" which is a crossdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity . So clearly, they are about growing particular denominations and particular local churches which are part of that denominational flavor. Evangelicalism is but one of a number of movements including pentecostalism, Catholicism, etc and these groups clearly do not consider the whole Body of Christ.

I am aware that these groups will from time to time, hire the facilities belonging to a particular denomination in order to carry out some sort of service. For example, they might utilize a local baptist or Presbyterian church for the purpose of conducting a special service or talk from a local or invited guest. Why they did not utilize the facilitates of a Catholic church? Partly because they are not comfortable holding a meeting in the presence of Mary and other idols, but mostly because of some denominational affiliation and connection with these local churches. I really do not see the difference between this practice and the practice of the local churches in welcoming students to the Sunday meeting at the meeting hall or home group fellowships.

I didn't say it shouldn't be run by church members and your point that it's biblical to be run by church members doesn't apply at all. The issue we were discussing was the name being CoC instead of their real name of who employs them. The LC employs full-timers to work on campus and run CoC- there are no other Christian groups involved. They've been legitimately criticized by mainstream Christianity for being "deceitful" in their recruiting tactics- with one of the ways being the issue of using a different name. You can look that up yourself! They've been criticized for it and it is true, that cults also recruit this way. It's not a great way to be viewed- doing the same thing cults do and excluding your name from a group thats undoubtedly run by them.

Anyways, I never said that local church members running the group was wrong- I have no issue with that. To my knowledge- no one does. We were talking about their two names and I didn't even say that was unbiblical- just a bad practice! There are a lot of things in life that you aren't going to be able to straightforwardly pin point to Scripture for a clear answer. I don't think the Bible addresses either issue of who should run campus ministry groups and how they should be named but my point is, you're bringing up an issue that isn't being debated and then implying that my position on the new subject you've brought up is unbiblical. Stick to the issues please and make points that apply to the argument.
You may be doing this intentionally in an effort to frustrate me or maybe you're just not great at debating...not sure. I'm happy to keep this up though.

I didn't say it shouldn't be run by church members and your point that it's biblical to be run by church members doesn't apply at all. The issue we were discussing was the name being CoC instead of their real name of who employs them. The LC employs full-timers to work on campus and run CoC- there are no other Christian groups involved. They've been legitimately criticized by mainstream Christianity for being "deceitful" in their recruiting tactics- with one of the ways being the issue of using a different name. You can look that up yourself! They've been criticized for it and it is true, that cults also recruit this way. It's not a great way to be viewed- doing the same thing cults do and excluding your name from a group thats undoubtedly run by them.

Anyways, I never said that local church members running the group was wrong- I have no issue with that. To my knowledge- no one does. We were talking about their two names and I didn't even say that was unbiblical- just a bad practice! There are a lot of things in life that you aren't going to be able to straightforwardly pin point to Scripture for a clear answer. I don't think the Bible addresses this issue but you can try to say it's biblical all you want for local church members to run a campus ministry but you're totally off subject. Intentionally, perhaps? Or maybe just not great at debating...not sure. I'm happy to keep this up though.

We cannot really separate the matter of names from the matter of denominations versus the local church because this is what is causing the confusion.

You may see the local church as any member from any denomination participating. I disagree. If a presbyterian participates, it is the presbyterian church, not the local church, participating. If a student asks that person "which church should I go to", that presbyterian may say "you can come to mine if you like". So a student would be "recruited" to presbyterianism. Very unlikely that the presbyterian volunteer would suggest a student go to a Catholic church I think. Thus proving they are not about "building up the Body" but evangelicalism.

Clearly, the group which represents evangelicalism is only a part of the body (what about pentecostals and Catholics etc?).

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups.

Also, it may vary from campus to campus, but I think there are more volunteers from the local churches involved than full timers. It costs a lot of money to support full timers and it is better to get volunteers (including student volunteers) to devote their weekends of after work hours than full timers.

2) These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

3) The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Biblically it is the local church, not inter-church or para-church organizations which God has equipped to do the work on campuses. Biblically and historically there is little support for church-independent organizations to be doing the work without oversight from the local church.

On this basis I question their legitimacy to do work on campus if they are not overseen or run by the local church.

Ok, that's fine that you question their legitimacy to do work on campus without being overseen or run by the local church. I didn't have a problem with that.

My issue is with them using two different names and excluding CoC's affiliation with the local church that runs it, while recruiting and during the initial stages of their interactions with college kids.

You're trying to prove a point on an argument that no one is having. No one has said that it's wrong to have local church employees run a campus ministry, right? I'll have to scroll down but I'm pretty sure that again- you're twisting this argument.

In an effort to clarify why a group shouldn't use a different name (or totally exclude their name) than the one they're employed by or a member of, I went on to point out that CoC was ONLY run by local church employees and student members.

You seem to be taking my clarification of who the group is run by (in an effort to show why they shouldn't have a different name), and twist it to say that I have an issue with the fact that LC members are running a campus ministry in the first place.

That isn't my issue so again, your opinions on who should or shouldn't be involved with a campus ministry are completely off topic and please stop implying that I've taken an stance on an issue that I never took and aren't even legitimate concerns.

Ok, that's fine that you question their legitimacy to do work on campus without being overseen or run by the local church. I didn't have a problem with that.

My issue is with them using two different names and excluding CoC's affiliation with the local church that runs it, while recruiting and during the initial stages of their interactions with college kids.

You're trying to prove a point on an argument that no one is having. No one has said that it's wrong to have local church employees run a campus ministry, right? I'll have to scroll down but I'm pretty sure that again- you're twisting this argument.

In an effort to clarify why a group shouldn't use a different name (or totally exclude their name) than the one they're employed by or a member of, I went on to point out that CoC was ONLY run by local church employees and student members.

You seem to be taking my clarification of who the group is run by in an effort to show why they shouldn't have a different name, and twist it to say that I have an issue with the fact that LC members are running a campus ministry in the first place.

That isn't my issue so again, your opinions on who should or shouldn't be involved with a campus ministry are completely off point and insinuating that I've made an argument which I've never made.

OK, getting back on primary topic, let's consider alternatives to the deception argument, one being:

"the requirements of the campus to allow "Christians on Campus" to be present." (as the OP stated)

I accept that, although some are, I believe. There is a Catholic forum discussion topic I found regarding whether the Navigators group is for or against Catholics. They conclude the latter not because of any clear statement from the Navigators but by inference from their stated belief in sola-scriptura. When these groups use the term "Christian community" they clearly are referring to only one particular branch of Christianity - evangelicalism.

As leastofthese incorrectly remarked "These groups are not about growing a local church or a denomination - they're about growing the Body".

To be strictly correct, "they're about growing Evangelicalism" which is a crossdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity . So clearly, they are about growing particular denominations and particular local churches which are part of that denominational flavor. Evangelicalism is but one of a number of movements including pentecostalism, Catholicism, etc and these groups clearly do not consider the whole Body of Christ.

I am aware that these groups will from time to time, hire the facilities belonging to a particular denomination in order to carry out some sort of service. For example, they might utilize a local baptist or Presbyterian church for the purpose of conducting a special service or talk from a local or invited guest. Why they did not utilize the facilitates of a Catholic church? Partly because they are not comfortable holding a meeting in the presence of Mary and other idols, but mostly because of some denominational affiliation and connection with these local churches. I really do not see the difference between this practice and the practice of the local churches in welcoming students to the Sunday meeting at the meeting hall or home group fellowships.

You don't? What you're describing with an evangelical group using a particular denomination's facilities to further their efforts, involves two different groups of people. CoC leaders are either employed by the local church or they're members of the local church that are volunteering their time. How is that the same as one group hiring out the facilities of another group that they're comfortable with? The local church owns the property that CoC uses. That's not the same as an evangelical group (which in general, focuses on preaching the gospel to all Protestant groups/churches that believe in justification by faith) using a church facilities that they're comfortable with- come on! Churches want to gain members- evangelical groups do not, unless you count the ones that want to join the movement- but that is on a much smaller scale than the amount of people in churches and every churches need to have a relatively healthy amount of members. Your statement about evangelicals wanting to grow certain denominations may be slightly true due to some denominations being more sectarian than others or having bad practices or reputations- but it's still vastly more inclusive than the local church's idea of "growing the Body" and they will generally be willing to preach in any Protestant church. Aside from "fundi" sectarian groups that are by nature unhealthy and probably wouldn't welcome them , the only group Evangelical's don't work with are Catholics and that is because unfortunately, Catholic doctrine is blatantly against the "saved by grace" doctrine. That doesn't mean there aren't Christians there that have been saved on their own accord, but clearly evangelicals believe in "saved by grace" and that contradicts the Catholic Churches teaching. Still, I believe many evangelical preachers (at least my great grandpa) would go there and preach the gospel given the chance-ha!! Do you really think the local church would just let an evangelist come in and "do his thing" for a meeting? I hope they would! I have to admit, given over 20 years in that group- I've never seen it, heard of it, and have to say I'm doubtful it would happen. Even if it did, I'm sure there would be disapproval, if not consequences, from the blending brothers in Anaheim and LSM.

Have to point out too that while you can say technically that all these are "movements," -I'm sure you know evangelism is the only movement that isn't it's own church or its own denomination. The Catholic church views itself as the "one true church" and Pentecostalism resulted in the Pentecostal denomination. You said that Evangelism, Pentecostalism, and Catholicism clearly don't consider the whole body of Christ? Wow. I hope you're meaning (1)they're not interested in seeing any other part of the body of Christ grow (aside from their flavor) and not that (2)they don't recognize other Christians as part of the Body of Christ. If it's the first, then the local church has to be the MOST guilty of the ones you listed, given their size and practices in comparison to the others! By your logic, when evangelicals want the body of Christ to grow it would include all Protestants denominations they "prefer" (still a lot!). For the Pentecostals, its would include all their splintering denominations. For the LC, you're talking about growing one pinkie toe (in comparison to the other groups) of the body of Christ. The LC isn't interested in investing any time with people without the desire that they would become part of the local church. It's an understandable wish for all denominations and sects! I'm just making the point that if you meant those three groups you listed didn't "consider the whole body of Christ" when furthering their efforts, then the local church would be the most guilty considering their strict recruitment styles and expectations of members. How many times have I heard, "they're not good material for the Body." Really? The body of what? The local church body or the body of Christ? However, if you meant the 2nd thats a pretty extreme statement. I hope its not and I'm truly trying to help you at this point. I'm no expert but you need to hear this-even from me! You're right about Catholics not representing (or recognizing) the whole body of Christ but that is bc of their doctrine (as I mentioned above). Pentecostals recognize anyone who is "born again" as a member of the body of Christ (at least mainstream/non-sectarian ones do!). As far as the Evangelical movement, they will be in any church preaching that sinners are saved by grace, through faith, by Jesus Christ- who died on the cross as a ransom for our sins. They stick to the basics! They also recognize the entire body of Christ as those who are "born again" (even the ones in the Catholic church who are saved in spite of wrong doctrine) and your reasoning for their "preference" of where they might like to preach or what facilities in what denominations they may use as a proof that they don't "consider the whole body of Christ" is awful! There is no logic there- you're using imagined preference that ALL evangelicals MUST have (according to you) on where they're most comfortable preaching and using that as proof that they "clearly do not consider the whole Body of Christ?" Even with that tainted logic- explain what you mean by "consider" or you'll get all the above questioning someone would have to do to even try to begin to understand the multiple possibilities of the point you're trying to make.

Sorry, I know I'm giving you are hard time. I appreciate your strong stance on it but you need to make a better argument. I think I'm following you but if I'm not missing anything- you're so very much OFF, with all due respect.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your argument. Your last paragraph is to justify what? It looks like (although I don't know why you're trying to justify this non-issue) that you're trying to validate that the local churches welcome students from CoC to the Sunday meeting at the meeting hall or people's homes and that it's ok that they want to "grow the body of Christ" by having CoC recruit college kids? Well, I don't really have a problem with this at all, bc the LC and CoC are the same people! What difference does it make? A CoC member inviting you to a meeting is still a local church member inviting you to one! The issue people have is that they separate themselves intentionally from the LC (due to it's bad reputation), and engage in a common cult recruitment tactic- creating a different name for themselves than the one of the group they actually work for. Once, they've hooked you and relationships are formed, they'll let you know about their affiliation with the LC, once you're in too deep to leave (their hope!). Obviously, their goal is to increase the members in the local church, like other groups, and that would be fine... except, it's a problem of HOW they're doing it, not the fact that they're doing it! Just be upfront about who you are and stop using deceitful recruiting practices and people wouldn't have such a problem with CoC bc it would be called something affiliated with their real name or their real name.

But the real issue (if I'm understanding correctly) is that you're trying to correct LeastofThese comment about how evangelical groups want to increase the WHOLE body of Christ and CoC doesn't. To prove his statement wrong, you're comparing how evangelical's (the LC in comparison) use the facilities of the denominations they prefer (the CoC house in comparison) and when the local church members invite students from CoC to the meetings to help "increase the Body" that it's the same as an evangelical group going to a denomination of their choice to preach the gospel and "increase the body."

We cannot really separate the matter of names from the matter of denominations versus the local church because this is what is causing the confusion.

You may see the local church as any member from any denomination participating. I disagree. If a presbyterian participates, it is the presbyterian church, not the local church, participating. If a student asks that person "which church should I go to", that presbyterian may say "you can come to mine if you like". So a student would be "recruited" to presbyterianism. Very unlikely that the presbyterian volunteer would suggest a student go to a Catholic church I think. Thus proving they are not about "building up the Body" but evangelicalism.

Clearly, the group which represents evangelicalism is only a part of the body (what about pentecostals and Catholics etc?).

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups.

Also, it may vary from campus to campus, but I think there are more volunteers from the local churches involved than full timers. It costs a lot of money to support full timers and it is better to get volunteers (including student volunteers) to devote their weekends of after work hours than full timers.

I don't see this as a matter of what groups are a denomination or not! How is that an issue related this topic?

Every group has to have a name, legally, to own property and employ people. This thread is titled "deceptions on campus" and one of the deceptions the LC uses is employing people that sometimes call themselves a different name (CoC) when on college campuses other than the name of the group they're a part of and that employs them (the LC). Every denomination or non-denominational group has to have a name. The difference in what groups are denominations or not doesn't apply because they all have names and the issue we're discussing is how the LC uses a different name when they're on the college campuses. There is a name for the group that owns the CoC house and employs the CoC employees, that are also full-timers for the local church, and the name isn't "Christians on campus!" its "The Local Church in <blank>."

Aside from your point about a Presbyterian not inviting someone to a Catholic Church not making sense due to the issue of Catholics not teaching a "saved by grace and grace alone" doctrine essential to the Christian faith (they believe there are works required as well for most), your argument truly doesn't make any sense with better examples! Even if you used a different example like "a Presbyterian wouldn't invite someone to a Baptist church," while probably true- that absolutely doesn't mean they're about "building up evangelism" instead of building up the body of Christ! You're saying it proves this, but how? Yes, they probably want to gain a member for their church, which every group does, but they're still essentially helping to increase the body of Christ. Evangelism isn't something that is "built up" by inviting someone to your church at all! That's just pure and simple inviting someone to church! I don't see how someone inviting another to their Christian meeting, denomination or not, proves they're not concerned with building up the body of Christ, but instead concerned with building up evangelicalism. You keep saying these actions prove this, but again-how? It's natural to invite someone to the place you know and are familiar with. Your judgement of that group being a "denomination" is a result of your "us vs. them" indoctrination and having an unbalanced viewpoint of the one church/one city doctrine being taken to an extreme. In practices, the local church mirrors that of a sectarian group- which is more divisive and elitist than most denominations! Yet, you think by insisting that you don't have a name, even though in practice you're just the same as other denominations (if not worse), that makes some kind of difference! A group is defined by its practices, not it's name! The local church is practicing all the things denominations do but their ridiculous claim to "not have a name" somehow proves to them that they're different. It reminds me of the book, "The Emperor's New Clothes!" You keep saying that people from denominations are just promoting evangelism by inviting people to their church instead focusing on building up the body of Christ. That also doesn't make sense bc Evangelism is a movement accepted by most Protestant groups, possibly all, so I don't see how inviting someone to a church you prefer is "building up evangelism!" Ha! If anything, sending someone to a different Protestant church would be more along the lines of "promoting evangelism!"

This isn't really the issue but your understanding of what evangelism is and how it relates to the Body is seriously flawed. My last response covered how your idea that evangelism "represents" just a portion of the body of Christ is pretty skewed. Not judging you, I'm not an expert but you really don't know what you're talking about and its obvious. Evangelicals don't "represent" anybody more than the rest, and are absolutely interested in increasing the whole body of Christ, which can include members of the Catholic Church that are saved on their own accord, despite what the Catholic Church teaches. Do you understand the difference in Protestantism and the Catholisism? The Catholic church does not teach that you are saved by being "born again" in the way we understand it. They believe that God's grace alone is not sufficient for salvation but requires works and there's a whole complicated process that honestly, I don't know a whole lot about. Either way- it's a legitimate argument that the Catholic Church, as a whole, has some serious differences in the fundamentals of the faith and while there are definitely saved believers in the church- you won't see an Evangelical speaking in that congregation. More likely bc it would never be allowed! So, I don't know why you're trying to figure out what groups Evangelicals represent and which ones they don't in the body of Christ. I don't understand your point to that argument but I'm guessing it's some justification for the relationship between Evangelicals and denominations and the LC and CoC. This got way off topic but there was a lot to address! For example...

This statement you've made has issues....

"The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group."

Why do you think the only group that represents the local church is Christians on campus? The group that represents the local church is called, "The church is <blank> locality." That's what's on their signs, their mail, their tax forms, property records, and the paychecks for their employees.

It's crazy to me that you can't recognize that they have a name. They LEGALLY HAVE TO HAVE A NAME to exist, doing the things they're doing. I understand the reasons that you don't want to have a name (you feel like it makes you a denomination even though no one cares about that except ppl in the LC) but you can't have an organization that owns property, employs people, and takes peoples money without paying taxes, WITHOUT A NAME!!! Sorry, this is just a humorous issue for me bc it's not the first time I've discussed this and the response is always the same- complete insistence that they have no name. Except on their sign of course. Oh, and with the IRS, and with their realtors and banks. They can have a name then, but bc having a name allegedly makes you a denomination- they become very clear after "taking care of business matters" that they do NOT have a name!!

Now, I'm not saying they have to be called, "the Church of WL" or the "LSM church," but in a practical way, LSM essentially controls all the churches with monetary requirements and other expectations so if you HAD to pick a name, it seems "Living Stream Ministry Church" would be the most accurate-especially due to the churches requirement to buy and sell LSM material exclusively.

But, I know that would upset you and my friends and family to be called that so fine- don't call yourself that. But don't deny the name each local church LEGALLY has. You're so caught up in lofty doctrine and legalism about names you can't acknowledge that each locality already has a name recognized by the government! I would say that's a pretty good argument for having a name when your government recognizes you as "said name". The idea of not having a name is so ridiculous and doesn't work in the real world. I think God will give some grace on this and you won't be condemned for having a name and becoming *gasp* a DENOMINATION. LC people are so indoctrinated that this is so evil- it's just a knee jerk response when someone says that word. Even being considered as "non-denominational" is below them. Get over it peeps, they're just words. No one cares what your name is but in the real world, groups have names!! It reminds me of when the artist Prince changed his name to a symbol with no name. So, people had to call him, "the artist formally known as Prince." That essentially become his new name, in practice, bc there was no option to address him with his name being a symbol other than "the artist formerly known as Prince!" This is how I view the LC- switching between a name when required to legally and then a symbol that is ridiculous and others having to name them to address the normal issues every Christian group experiences. You have no right to be offended by whatever name people call you when you've insisted that you have no name! Luckily, that can all be avoided bc lo and behold, according to our government- they have a name (sshhh! just like denominations do!) Frankly, by not naming themselves- the legality that they had to pick a name probably saved them! I'm sure they would have been labeled as the "WL church" (even more than they are now!) or something along those lines!

Also, in regards to this comment,

"I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception."

You can claim deception bc according to the US government, they have a name. They should use that name instead of CoC. Also, I never said they believe themselves to be part of a denomination called, "The church of Witness Lee." You can claim they're using deception by calling themselves CoC when they already have a name that's recognized by the government, which unfortunately has a bad reputation (hence the deception). Do you really think the local church would call themselves CoC if they weren't such a controversial group? You'll probably say yes, you follow blindly.

This comment you made still manages to surprise me even though I've heard this nonsense before....

You said...

"What is more like deception, is individuals who attend a certain denomination of their choice every Sunday, pretending to be "just Christians" or "just evangelical Christians" on campus. The leader may be presbyterian, the lead missionary may be a baptist, and maybe another is a pentecostal. They do not reveal their true denominational affiliation to the students, knowing well, that they are devoted to a denomination in their heart and on a Sunday. This is entirely different to the local churches, who do not believe they are a denomination of any kind. This confusion is evident when students are converted to "Christianity", only to be faced with the tough decision of "which church should I attend this Sunday", then, they realize that Christianity is really divided into many different groups."

I didn't realize that Christians were embarrassed of the denomination they're affiliated with! Do you realize this isn't true?? Only people in the LC can say this bc you've been so indoctrinated against denominations. They are NOT embarrassed by their denomination NOR do they hide their denominational affiliation to students. It's ironic, bc this is something cults do, but not denominations! Earlier today, I found a link to all the Christian clubs on the campus I live by. More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation. I truly feel bad that you are so misguided by the local church! NO ONE except the local church views denomination affiliation as something to "hide" or be embarrassed about. I really hope you can begin to see this. I also feel you're projecting your ideas about denominations on how someone "feels devoted to that denomination in their heart." That's completely ridiculous. I'm not saying some old-schoolers aren't like that but the trend now with Christian congregations is absolutely NON-DENOMINATIONAL and denominations left and right are dropping those affiliations and standing on a unified simple doctrine for accepting other believers! Some are doing now what the local church claims to do (yet doesn't) and "stand on the ground of oneness," perhaps in different words but essentially doing the same thing by being open to accepting all believers and taking communion with them. Christians are realizing more and more that denominations (although not evil) aren't helping bring Christians together. Pretty soon the local church is going to see a true expression of the Body of Christ coming together- from the former denominations!!I truly believe this and I also believe the Lord's Recovery will go even more off course with what the Bible teaches. They've been on a scary path and it's not getting better!

With your last point, yes- there are more members of the LC that are college age than full-timers, running CoC- although not by much! Why pay a full-timer to do it when a college age person will do it for free, right?

What is wrong with
Living Stream Ministry on Campus
Gospel of Witness Lee on Campus
Local Church movement on campus
It is not "just Christians"(and the people running it are proud of that). Why not brand it for more discerning tastes?

Too much bad press with the Lord’s Recovery so they choose the sneaky option.

What is wrong with
Living Stream Ministry on Campus
Gospel of Witness Lee on Campus
Local Church movement on campus
It is not "just Christians"(and the people running it are proud of that). Why not brand it for more discerning tastes?

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not, so I think that using a different name such as Christians on campus is entirely appropriate. If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth! And, I never did understand why there are different evangelical groups on the one campus, all trying to achieve the same ends, with very similar gospels. The situation is that we have different evangelical organizations all competing for the same students.

It's very easy to prove that Evangelicalism is indeed something that is "built up" - there was a time when Evangelicalism did not exist. It grew over time to the number of people it includes today. Clearly then, it was "built up", it must have been. Evangelical movements obviously build up themselves and the particular denominations they represent. Evangelicals also send missionaries to preach their gospel, and in many cases, re-evangelize countries for which there are already well established Catholic or Orthodox churches. Pentecostals will then do the same, sending their missionaries to preach their pentecostal gospel, in many cases, re-evangelizing areas where there are already well established evangelical/Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches. So, there is a build up of those particular denominations wherever they grow.

I am puzzled by your statement (in bold) that evangelicals don't represent anybody more than the rest.

There is a table "Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008"

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. Therefore, Evangelical groups and associations represent 34% of Americans, or whatever the figure is today, I don't know. I mean, these groups don't exist for the Catholic church do they? (they have their own statistics, a much larger group than the Evangelicals).

I understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics and the reasoning for the differences. What I don't understand is why Catholics are considered "part of the Body of Christ" sometimes, and other times not. Unless evangelical groups are building up the Catholic churches, I cannot see how they can claim to be building up the Body. Their reluctance to build up the attendance at Catholic churches proves they are about building up evangelicalism rather than the entire Body of Christ.

This is what Watchman Nee says:
"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ The Normal Christian Faith,
by Watchman Nee. So, either you have misunderstood what they are saying when they say "we have no name", or they have misunderstood what it means and did not explain it properly. "We don't have a name" is really a shortening of "we don't have a special name other than the name of the locality".

As I mentioned before, the local church assembly and the on campus meeting are different. So, there is good reason for using different names. As an example, if I went shopping with 10 brothers and sisters, I would not tell the cashier "we are the church in...". We might however, say, "we are Christians". I do not think a denominational church would speak like this either. If 10 baptists went shopping they would not tell the cashier "we are the baptist church in...", but they might say "we are Christians".

I have the heard the same story for what, the past 20 years, about denominations "getting together". I just don't see much happening. I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. I have met with some non-denom Christians before, and their reason for being non-denom is typically "this church is this, and this church is that", rather than "we saw the vision of the oneness of the Body and want to be one with all the believers".

These sorts of statements:
"More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation." prove otherwise to what you claim about the situation of denominationalism.

Obviously, the more "affiliations" there are, the more division there must be. If a group was affiliated with 100,000 different groups, I would think, wow, that's a lot of different groups - for what?

When a student comes into contact with a Christian club at there college, whether or not they are Christian they probably want an idea what the club is about.

Now, there is one club that at my campus that clearly links itself to one particular church service. So, when a student encounters this group thinks 'Oh, it's for members of that church group and if they are encouraging me to come along it is because they want me to go to their service"
Now, if a student is looking for a Sunday service, because they've just moved to that there or whatever, they might enquire to find more about. If they are not interested they move along.

If they come into contact with a para-church group, usually they can work out pretty quickly that it is a para-church group and decide if they want to go or not, according to their beliefs and what they are looking for.

Then you get to Christians on Campus. Cool, a Christian group that welcomes all Christians. If you are a naive Christian that sounds great. What are they doing on campus? Oh, they just come together to study the bible. A lot of Christians new to university would love to study the bible with others. Maybe, one is not a Christian but curious what the bible has to say, a bible study sounds perfect for that.
However, Christians on Campus's purpose is not just to have bible studies on campus to help enlighten Christian and non-Christian's alike.
The purpose is to get them to come to the Local Church in [City] Sunday meetings, to get them to be active recruiters while at college and when they finish college to go to the FTT.

If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?..

I’m sorry you have issues understanding my points. I’ve already made a point for all the important issues you’ve addressed and I can’t help you understand the rest- it should be common sense though. No one can help you besides the Lord and there are some people we shouldn’t argue with. You made that clear when you asked me to prove how a group of people is the same as an event (a table meeting) thinking that I wouldn’t be able to (because people and events are two different things) and you’re still ignoring the fact that the governement recognizes them as having a name proven by the fact that the LC employs CoC and owns their property. But now you’re claiming that bc the LC has a table meeting with a function other than that of CoC- that it must somehow excuse the issue of them having two names, even though it’s a common cult recruitment tactic.

I could sit here and continue to prove each of your points as incorrect but I’m hoping someone else takes the wheel. First of all, we can’t have a discussion if we can’t agree on the facts- which we clearly can’t do.

There are some ppl you just shouldn’t argue with- you’re proving to be one of them. Have a great day.

When a student comes into contact with a Christian club at there college, whether or not they are Christian they probably want an idea what the club is about.

Now, there is one club that at my campus that clearly links itself to one particular church service. So, when a student encounters this group thinks 'Oh, it's for members of that church group and if they are encouraging me to come along it is because they want me to go to their service"
Now, if a student is looking for a Sunday service, because they've just moved to that there or whatever, they might enquire to find more about. If they are not interested they move along.

If they come into contact with a para-church group, usually they can work out pretty quickly that it is a para-church group and decide if they want to go or not, according to their beliefs and what they are looking for.

Then you get to Christians on Campus. Cool, a Christian group that welcomes all Christians. If you are a naive Christian that sounds great. What are they doing on campus? Oh, they just come together to study the bible. A lot of Christians new to university would love to study the bible with others. Maybe, one is not a Christian but curious what the bible has to say, a bible study sounds perfect for that.
However, Christians on Campus's purpose is not just to have bible studies on campus to help enlighten Christian and non-Christian's alike.
The purpose is to get them to come to the Local Church in [City] Sunday meetings, to get them to be active recruiters while at college and when they finish college to go to the FTT.

That's the deception.

Thank you- sorry to bombard your thread! Sometimes you can only explain things so many times, and in so many ways to someone- and when they clearly ignore reasonable logic- there’s a deeper issue going on. Not everyone is going to live in reality.

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth!

Ask those in Midwest LC's who got sued in court for their name. Columbus where I once lived was one place.

Yes, folks, the height of hypocrisy and arrogance -- the LSM church that claims to have no name, and condemns all others for their names, went to court with a lawsuit to legally acquire the rights to their officially sanctioned name "the church in Columbus."

So now LSMers like Evangelical can now condemn the church there for being the "Columbus Christian Assembly."

As Someone once said, "Woe to you hypocrites, blind guides."

__________________Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!.

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not, so I think that using a different name such as Christians on campus is entirely appropriate. If you can show, that the Christians on Campus meetings are equivalent to the Lord's Table meeting on a Sunday then perhaps you have a point. Can you?

So, if the names do not mean anything, then why they don't get rid of them? Ask any denominational pastor that, and their answer will reveal the truth! And, I never did understand why there are different evangelical groups on the one campus, all trying to achieve the same ends, with very similar gospels. The situation is that we have different evangelical organizations all competing for the same students.

It's very easy to prove that Evangelicalism is indeed something that is "built up" - there was a time when Evangelicalism did not exist. It grew over time to the number of people it includes today. Clearly then, it was "built up", it must have been. Evangelical movements obviously build up themselves and the particular denominations they represent. Evangelicals also send missionaries to preach their gospel, and in many cases, re-evangelize countries for which there are already well established Catholic or Orthodox churches. Pentecostals will then do the same, sending their missionaries to preach their pentecostal gospel, in many cases, re-evangelizing areas where there are already well established evangelical/Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox churches. So, there is a build up of those particular denominations wherever they grow.

I am puzzled by your statement (in bold) that evangelicals don't represent anybody more than the rest.

There is a table "Religious Self-Identification of the U.S. Adult Population: 1990, 2001, 2008"

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. Therefore, Evangelical groups and associations represent 34% of Americans, or whatever the figure is today, I don't know. I mean, these groups don't exist for the Catholic church do they? (they have their own statistics, a much larger group than the Evangelicals).

I understand the difference between Protestants and Catholics and the reasoning for the differences. What I don't understand is why Catholics are considered "part of the Body of Christ" sometimes, and other times not. Unless evangelical groups are building up the Catholic churches, I cannot see how they can claim to be building up the Body. Their reluctance to build up the attendance at Catholic churches proves they are about building up evangelicalism rather than the entire Body of Christ.

This is what Watchman Nee says:
"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ The Normal Christian Faith,
by Watchman Nee. So, either you have misunderstood what they are saying when they say "we have no name", or they have misunderstood what it means and did not explain it properly. "We don't have a name" is really a shortening of "we don't have a special name other than the name of the locality".

As I mentioned before, the local church assembly and the on campus meeting are different. So, there is good reason for using different names. As an example, if I went shopping with 10 brothers and sisters, I would not tell the cashier "we are the church in...". We might however, say, "we are Christians". I do not think a denominational church would speak like this either. If 10 baptists went shopping they would not tell the cashier "we are the baptist church in...", but they might say "we are Christians".

I have the heard the same story for what, the past 20 years, about denominations "getting together". I just don't see much happening. I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. I have met with some non-denom Christians before, and their reason for being non-denom is typically "this church is this, and this church is that", rather than "we saw the vision of the oneness of the Body and want to be one with all the believers".

These sorts of statements:
"More than half listed their associated Christian group on the list. For many of the other ones, I just had to click on the link to their webpage to find out their Christian groups affiliation." prove otherwise to what you claim about the situation of denominationalism.

Obviously, the more "affiliations" there are, the more division there must be. If a group was affiliated with 100,000 different groups, I would think, wow, that's a lot of different groups - for what?

Ok, I have more time and feel you need to see a different perspective (if possible).

In response to your first paragraph, you're ignoring the fact that the government recognizes the LC as having a name and that the LC employs the people for CoC and owns the building CoC uses. In addition to ignoring that, you're now stating that the LC does have a name, but strictly speaking- it's only for Sunday table meetings. So they do have a name, but only on Sundays- according to you? Also, how is comparing the meetings of CoC (that are run by LC employees) and the Lord's table meeting in the LC proving that their different names are justified? Why do you consider the style of their meetings being equivalent to each other as a factor in this discussion? Do you really think that just because the meetings have a different flavor that it justifies them being called a different name when they're on a campus? With that reasoning, what should we call the group (although the same people) that meets on Wednesday nights for the prayer meeting? According to your logic, it could be acceptable to call them a different name (even though they're the same group of people) because the prayer meeting is run differently than the Lord's Table and their functions are different. Do you understand how your logic isn't applicable to justify them calling themselves CoC now? Obviously, the LC and CoC have two different initiatives but they're all on the "same team" and working together. Just like a business has a sales team and customer service team- but is still one company. It's exactly like the LC having CoC for recruiting, so why are they using a different name with CoC- if not to be deceitful? Given the general populations knowledge about deceitful recruiting practices- you'd think the LC would want to avoid this well known deceitful practice of giving themselves another name when recruiting on campus! But, it seems to be a small price they're willing to pay and will use the tactic to avoid the loss of potential recruits!

You can't deny, one exists to recruit for the other and you're right that the CoC meetings will not be the same as the Lord's table meeting but that is not "proof" as you're stating, that they are justified in being called different things! Also, you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name. Not the mention, the local church wouldn't be able to employ people or own property- without a name. You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. You can't have it both ways and just claim to be "Christians who meet together on the (in theory only) ground of one-ness" with no name, but then also employ people and own property. To do those things, you must have a name. You can't argue that they legally have one but I guess you could argue that it's only due to "man's law" that they have a legal identity and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that lowly characteristic of having a name as a mere "legal technicality." Feel free to do so, as do many other LC-goers! But you have a name, therefore- call yourself that name when out in the world doing things in an organized effort.

I hesitated even responding bc I knew this would be so repetitive and it's proving to be the case! I'm taking the time to respond to all your points but you've ignored the ones you can't defend and then thrown out more points that are, as the others, not proving your argument like you think they are! This topic you've brought up now about how LC and CoC meetings being different and how that somehow justifies the different names is such a bad example for your argument that I almost feel bad pointing out such flawed logic.

Ok, 2nd paragraph. You said, "if names don't mean anything, why don't they drop them?" Ok, just because a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate in the way that most congregations do, that doesn't mean that they're a divisive denomination! A name could be a name for a denomination or a non-denominational group. How could they drop their name(denominational or not), as you're suggesting, and employ people and own property? I'm not sure what answer you believe the hypothetical pastors would give in your scenario but I'm going to take a wild guess and say their response would be something that someone in the local church told you it would be- ha! There are so many of those silly notions in the LC that make you think about the world in an alternate reality! Also, in regards to the evangelical campus ministries "competing with each other," that's also likely your perception due to being in the local church. They'll tell you that kind of stuff but in reality, unless individual evangelical leaders on campus have some sort of personal vendetta to "steal" other believers from other groups and be the exception to the rule-you're completely off base to say they're competing for students. There are needs that can be met, in different ways, and by different groups. A healthy Christian campus ministry will work with other groups that also preach the gospel but may serve in a different way. You really do have an LC indoctrinated view of how things work outside the LC- I'm not trying to be condescending. It's just very obvious and it makes me sad.

Your third paragraph...I'm not sure why we're discussing this- I agree with you that different Christian groups tend to grow the group they're associated with. That seemed to turn into an argument on the definitions of different movements and actually- I'm glad bc it made me read up on the topic and now I can see why you're separating Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. I thought that Pentecostalism was just a movement under the umbrellas of the Evangelicalism movement. While Pentecostalism TECHNICALLY does have its roots in Evangelicalism, there are some differences. Again, I don't see how this topic applies to the conversation at hand (CoC) since it's common knowledge that Christian groups are trying to gain members for their associated congregations but I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that! Anyways, I'd share his article about the differences/similarities of the two movements.

4th paragraph... I didn't say that evangelicals "don't represent anybody more than the rest." They clearly can't "represent" Catholics bc Catholics wouldn't allow it! I already explained that evangelicalism is only within the Protestant churches because the Catholic Church, by definition, doesn't allow any movement to promote it or recognize it other than itself! I can't speak for Catholicism (need to look that up) but Evangelicalism recognizes the Catholic church as having members that are born again Christians and part of the body of Christ. But obviously, due to not being "welcomed" in the Catholic Church community, they don't have much affiliation with the Catholic Church as a result. Also, it's obvious that Evangelicals don't agree with the majority of Catholic doctrine so while they recognize that there are born again Christians there, it would be unreasonable for Evangelicals to promote attendance in a place they believe also teaches unscriptural doctrine- even if it's not doctrine related to the key issues of the faith. As far as the survey you brought up, I'm sorry-I don't see how that applies. I agree that Evangelicalism might be represented as a separate group than Catholicism (as shown in the survey). Again, for the most part- that's due to the Catholic Church not welcoming the evangelical movement into their services. What point does that survey make, in your opinion, by distinguishing the two groups of born-again Christians/Evangelical and Catholic Christians? Are you trying to imply this somehow means that Evangelicalism is to blame for this? After posting the survey, you're clearly stating that because Evangelicalism doesn't actively build up each denomination equally- according to you, this proves they are wrong to claim they are building up the Body of Christ? Wow! So it has to be one or the other in your mind? The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. Why does the issue of how Evangelicalism possibly creating more growth in certain denominations than others even matter? For someone so concerned about the one-ness of the body of Christ, do you really care that the movement has less affect on some groups than others? Even if they do cause some groups to grow more than others, do you think that result is 100% due to Evangelicalism deciding which groups they want to grow and which ones they don't? Please! They're growing the Body! That's all that matters! Evangelicalism isn't trying to "build up" evangelicalism. It's whole existence is to serve the Lord! If one denomination grows more than another because of Evangelicalism- that's just the Lord's mercy and has less to do with their efforts given that it's a movement that includes all Protestant churches!

5th paragraph.....forgive me if I don't take Watchmen Nee's words as a substitute for Scripture. Please! Show me where it says that in the Bible. The city boundaries as being the basis and boundary for meeting with other Christians is HIGHLY debatable and you should know that very few Christians agree with this doctrine due to it stretching Biblical teachings.

6th paragraph... see my first paragraph but your example of telling a cashier "we're Christians" instead of the fact that they're Baptists is clearly not the same as one group of people being employed by a Christian congregation, then recruiting for it under a different name. Who is the "cashier" in this example? The college students? In your example, you forgot to include that the Baptist church would actually be paying the "shoppers" to tell the cashier they are "just Christians" and then develop a relationship with the cashier, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to the Baptist church. If you're going to use that analogy-let's apply it fully!

7th paragraph... well, that is your experience and perspective. Mine is different. I've seen it happen to two churches personally and have sensed the change. I looked it up and sure enough, it's happening! The article says churches are, "reinventing how evangelicals and others cooperate and shape their ministries in many contexts and across denominational borders." This seems to contradict your claim that they're ditching their denomination status "due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity." Sure, the article doesn't use LC lingo like "seeing a vision of the one-ness of the Body." It's basically the same thought process though! Also, give them a break! Change takes time! Clearly this is an awesome thing to see how congregations are moving towards more fellowship and involvement with each other! Do you not recognize that is from the Lord? You still think congregations efforts to be one in the Body of Christ is still somehow below the LC due to your insistence that the LC doesn't have a name, therefore stands on the ground of one-ness" (even thought they don't back that statement up)? Here's the article- again, I'm sorry you haven't seen it but it's happening!

8th paragraph... yes, there are many affiliations or denominations. That's why it's been great to see so many dropping those denominational ties and focusing on the key issues of the faith and fellowship with the whole body of Christ. Granted, being non-denominational, as I stated before, doesn't mean you can't have a name. Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't. I know you're not going to agree due to your intense LSM indoctrination but just know your opinion and the LC doctrine on this issue is discredited by the majority of Christian scholars, and believers in general. The doctrine of "having no name besides that of your locality" is questionable at best, not emphasized in the Bible, and practically impossible to execute in the real world. It could never work and the LC knows it! It's easy to "state this ideology" knowing that it would never actually happen due to them not being able to manage it and ultimately LSM would lose their control. Still, the doctrine is definitely OVER EMPHASIZED by the LC in an classic sectarian attempt to elevate themselves over other believers. By elevating an obscure doctrine to such an unhealthy level- they actually create MORE division with other Christians in that this requirement is almost at the same level as the fundamental issues of the faith! They use this elevated doctrine as the basis of their existence and judge and follow any other doctrine as a measure against it. It's called BEING OUT OF BALANCE- and unfortunately it's something many cults and sectarian groups do. They take one doctrine of minor importance, that may even be correct, but elevate it to a point that is unhealthy and base/measure everything against it. The LC isn't the first to do it and it won't be the last!

Ok, I have more time and feel you need to see a different perspective (if possible).

In response to your first paragraph, you're ignoring the fact that the government recognizes the LC as having a name and that the LC employs the people for CoC and owns the building CoC uses. In addition to ignoring that, you're now stating that the LC does have a name, but strictly speaking- it's only for Sunday table meetings. So they do have a name, but only on Sundays- according to you? Also, how is comparing the meetings of CoC (that are run by LC employees) and the Lord's table meeting in the LC proving that their different names are justified? Why do you consider the style of their meetings being equivalent to each other as a factor in this discussion? Do you really think that just because the meetings have a different flavor that it justifies them being called a different name when they're on a campus? With that reasoning, what should we call the group (although the same people) that meets on Wednesday nights for the prayer meeting? According to your logic, it could be acceptable to call them a different name (even though they're the same group of people) because the prayer meeting is run differently than the Lord's Table and their functions are different. Do you understand how your logic isn't applicable to justify them calling themselves CoC now? Obviously, the LC and CoC have two different initiatives but they're all on the "same team" and working together. Just like a business has a sales team and customer service team- but is still one company. It's exactly like the LC having CoC for recruiting, so why are they using a different name with CoC- if not to be deceitful? Given the general populations knowledge about deceitful recruiting practices- you'd think the LC would want to avoid this well known deceitful practice of giving themselves another name when recruiting on campus! But, it seems to be a small price they're willing to pay and will use the tactic to avoid the loss of potential recruits!

You can't deny, one exists to recruit for the other and you're right that the CoC meetings will not be the same as the Lord's table meeting but that is not "proof" as you're stating, that they are justified in being called different things! Also, you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name. Not the mention, the local church wouldn't be able to employ people or own property- without a name. You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. You can't have it both ways and just claim to be "Christians who meet together on the (in theory only) ground of one-ness" with no name, but then also employ people and own property. To do those things, you must have a name. You can't argue that they legally have one but I guess you could argue that it's only due to "man's law" that they have a legal identity and then turn around and refuse to acknowledge that lowly characteristic of having a name as a mere "legal technicality." Feel free to do so, as do many other LC-goers! But you have a name, therefore- call yourself that name when out in the world doing things in an organized effort.

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my posts, if not for my benefit then for the benefit of any lurkers.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the church has a name, and even quoted Watchman Nee. But you are arguing the point that you introduced in your last post I replied to. I don't think I ever denied that the LC "has a name". It is stated, in the Nee quote I provided, that the name is the name of the city in which the church dwells. The city-name of the church is a point I have defended many times on this forum. BTW the name of the church can also be just Jesus Christ, it depends if we are looking at the local or Universal/spiritual side.

Regarding the naming of the on campus activity, I think we need to understand two things:

1)the objective of the on campus ministry is to add to the church. Call it recruitment if you like, that's the whole point of on campus ministry. The on campus ministry is a means to an end, not the end itself. Just like students are not expected to study at college their whole life, they are expected to graduate and join the real world in employment. So what do you expect? The objective of any evangelical effort is to "add to the church". The on campus meetings are not "lampstands" where the Lord's Table is held each Sunday. Just like I would not call my family home "the local church in <city>", it's probably not appropriate for the on-campus group either. Yes, we are members of the local church, but it is not correct to call ourselves "the local church in...". This is more appropriate for the Sunday meeting hall where the whole church gathers (not just students). If the other groups on campus are not there to build the church and recruit students, then what are they doing there?

Let's not be so naive and think that what Christians on Campus does and how it operates is so unique. The other on campus groups are not just "building the Body" and reaching any and all students, and all enjoying oneness with each other, while the "Christians on campus" are not. They each have their own reason for existence (if they didn't, the Navigators and the Campus Crusade for Christ etc would probably be joined into one organization already), they each have different motives for targeting particular kinds of students. They each are connected to local denominations (who may provide support by way of finance, resources or volunteers) who probably expect some sort of return on their investment (such as those students joining the church).

It is well known that Bill Bright's ministry, for example, targeted students especially, and those with special capabilities. Here is a statement how they targeted particular types of students for their purpose:

Reaching and recruiting leaders was always one of
Bill’s priorities. In fact, the very first outreach Bill
and Vonette carried out at UCLA focused on student
leaders. Campus Crusade has followed that pattern
ever since. Not because the souls of leaders are any
more valuable, but because they have a larger sphere
of influence and can expose even more people to the
gospel as their lives change. Also, they can provide
leadership within the ministry, bringing about
greater excellence.

The on campus evangelical groups are there for the students, not the homeless people. They particularly target the students which have the greatest potential (the most athletic, brightest, or strongest leadership potential).

So if anyone criticize Witness Lee for seeking "Good building material" then you better also criticize the other on-campus groups for targeting "students with leadership potential".

2) the objective of the on-campus ministry is to add people into the church. Recruitment is otherwise known as evangelism. It is the response to the call of Christ to "make disciples" and build the church. Ephesians 4:12 - for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ

On these two points, the local churches are consistent with their beliefs. Therefore it is unlikely this is a deceptive practice. Basically it is good evangelism (which on-campus groups / denominations which use various gimmicks and tricks to attract people might applaud). The name "Christians on campus" is not even a gimmick - the name is very neutral. Other groups may use the name "power rangers" or "excitement sports club". Even the name "the Navigators" is sort of gimmicky. Adding to the church, is unlike the para and inter-organizations which run Christian activities but typically have little to do with the local churches. As the Gotquestions article I posted highlights, the on-campus organizations and the local churches (aka denominations) are somewhat disjointed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I hesitated even responding bc I knew this would be so repetitive and it's proving to be the case! I'm taking the time to respond to all your points but you've ignored the ones you can't defend and then thrown out more points that are, as the others, not proving your argument like you think they are! This topic you've brought up now about how LC and CoC meetings being different and how that somehow justifies the different names is such a bad example for your argument that I almost feel bad pointing out such flawed logic.

You could share some of the blame for any repetitiveness - consider that you wasted a whole paragraph or two arguing as if I said "the church has no name". You wrote:

"you're just willfully ignoring the fact the the government does recognize the local church as having a name"
"You can insist all day long that there is no name, yet- from a legal standpoint, there is a name. "

When I clearly showed it does have a name. I personally am okay with repetition if it helps the argument - it's a way to emphasize something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Ok, 2nd paragraph. You said, "if names don't mean anything, why don't they drop them?" Ok, just because a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate in the way that most congregations do, that doesn't mean that they're a divisive denomination! A name could be a name for a denomination or a non-denominational group. How could they drop their name(denominational or not), as you're suggesting, and employ people and own property? I'm not sure what answer you believe the hypothetical pastors would give in your scenario but I'm going to take a wild guess and say their response would be something that someone in the local church told you it would be- ha! There are so many of those silly notions in the LC that make you think about the world in an alternate reality! Also, in regards to the evangelical campus ministries "competing with each other," that's also likely your perception due to being in the local church. They'll tell you that kind of stuff but in reality, unless individual evangelical leaders on campus have some sort of personal vendetta to "steal" other believers from other groups and be the exception to the rule-you're completely off base to say they're competing for students. There are needs that can be met, in different ways, and by different groups. A healthy Christian campus ministry will work with other groups that also preach the gospel but may serve in a different way. You really do have an LC indoctrinated view of how things work outside the LC- I'm not trying to be condescending. It's just very obvious and it makes me sad.

Again you are arguing what I am not, about becoming nameless, not my real point about changing names. You said "a congregation is required to have a name in order to operate". I am not talking about becoming nameless, but about changing their name. I agree that just because a congregation has a name does not mean they are divisive. But I am not saying that. I am saying that if they were not divisive (as you claim) they would not have a different name or would change it pretty quickly, to something non-denominational or similar to the groups they claim to be in unity with. Let's consider that if a company is taken over by another company, that company may be absorbed and take on the name of the larger company. Happens all the time. In rare cases, the companies may share the name, with a hyphen. But usually the little guy adopts the name of the big guy. They change their name! Also, suppose a woman divorces and re-marries. Suppose she does not change her name to the name of her new husband. Sure, maybe they are living together and everything, in practice they seem unified, but why wouldn't she change her name to her new husbands name if she is really really devoted to him?

I think it is obvious that a church can change its name, anytime it wants to. So why don't they? I came across this article which discusses the matter of churches changing their name:

Firstly, this article supports my idea that names are important. So let's not pretend they aren't - they are. I am glad you agree that names are important - even legal! (other people on this forum don't agree that names are so important). Secondly, they seem to be saying that the reason churches don't change their name is because they don't want to upset their existing congregations, or cause strife. Of course, to change the name will by costly.

So basically a pastor of a Presbyterian church, for example, may desire to change their name to something denominational, but they can't, or more precisely, won't. This is why, it is easier to "come out" and start fresh, than try to change the name of all the denominations already existing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Your third paragraph...I'm not sure why we're discussing this- I agree with you that different Christian groups tend to grow the group they're associated with. That seemed to turn into an argument on the definitions of different movements and actually- I'm glad bc it made me read up on the topic and now I can see why you're separating Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. I thought that Pentecostalism was just a movement under the umbrellas of the Evangelicalism movement. While Pentecostalism TECHNICALLY does have its roots in Evangelicalism, there are some differences. Again, I don't see how this topic applies to the conversation at hand (CoC) since it's common knowledge that Christian groups are trying to gain members for their associated congregations but I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that! Anyways, I'd share his article about the differences/similarities of the two movements.

As Ohio stated, there are only two types of Christians - those who speak in tongues, and those who don't . Seriously, the differences can be big enough for pentecostals to not join evangelical on campus groups, and vice versa.

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

4th paragraph... I didn't say that evangelicals "don't represent anybody more than the rest." They clearly can't "represent" Catholics bc Catholics wouldn't allow it! I already explained that evangelicalism is only within the Protestant churches because the Catholic Church, by definition, doesn't allow any movement to promote it or recognize it other than itself! I can't speak for Catholicism (need to look that up) but Evangelicalism recognizes the Catholic church as having members that are born again Christians and part of the body of Christ. But obviously, due to not being "welcomed" in the Catholic Church community, they don't have much affiliation with the Catholic Church as a result. Also, it's obvious that Evangelicals don't agree with the majority of Catholic doctrine so while they recognize that there are born again Christians there, it would be unreasonable for Evangelicals to promote attendance in a place they believe also teaches unscriptural doctrine- even if it's not doctrine related to the key issues of the faith. As far as the survey you brought up, I'm sorry-I don't see how that applies. I agree that Evangelicalism might be represented as a separate group than Catholicism (as shown in the survey). Again, for the most part- that's due to the Catholic Church not welcoming the evangelical movement into their services. What point does that survey make, in your opinion, by distinguishing the two groups of born-again Christians/Evangelical and Catholic Christians? Are you trying to imply this somehow means that Evangelicalism is to blame for this? After posting the survey, you're clearly stating that because Evangelicalism doesn't actively build up each denomination equally- according to you, this proves they are wrong to claim they are building up the Body of Christ? Wow! So it has to be one or the other in your mind? The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. Why does the issue of how Evangelicalism possibly creating more growth in certain denominations than others even matter? For someone so concerned about the one-ness of the body of Christ, do you really care that the movement has less affect on some groups than others? Even if they do cause some groups to grow more than others, do you think that result is 100% due to Evangelicalism deciding which groups they want to grow and which ones they don't? Please! They're growing the Body! That's all that matters! Evangelicalism isn't trying to "build up" evangelicalism. It's whole existence is to serve the Lord! If one denomination grows more than another because of Evangelicalism- that's just the Lord's mercy and has less to do with their efforts given that it's a movement that includes all Protestant churches!

If "growing the Body" meant this:

"The ONLY thing you have to do to become a believer and member of the Body is to be born-again. "

why do we have churches? Can't everyone just stay at home on Sunday and watch church on TV?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

5th paragraph.....forgive me if I don't take Watchmen Nee's words as a substitute for Scripture. Please! Show me where it says that in the Bible. The city boundaries as being the basis and boundary for meeting with other Christians is HIGHLY debatable and you should know that very few Christians agree with this doctrine due to it stretching Biblical teachings.

6th paragraph... see my first paragraph but your example of telling a cashier "we're Christians" instead of the fact that they're Baptists is clearly not the same as one group of people being employed by a Christian congregation, then recruiting for it under a different name. Who is the "cashier" in this example? The college students? In your example, you forgot to include that the Baptist church would actually be paying the "shoppers" to tell the cashier they are "just Christians" and then develop a relationship with the cashier, with the ultimate goal of bringing them to the Baptist church. If you're going to use that analogy-let's apply it fully!

I quoted Watchman Nee to prove that the local churches do have a name. So I don't know why you are arguing as if we believe we don't have a name.

It could be argued that the inter and para organisations on campus are recruiting for the local churches. I believe they are, because after leaving college or on a Sunday, those students converted will seek to attend a local church. And if those organizations are not seeking to add to the local churches - what's the point? just to create converts who will watch church on TV every Sunday or do something else? When those students graduate - are those on campus organizations going to continue providing a spiritual home for them? This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

7th paragraph... well, that is your experience and perspective. Mine is different. I've seen it happen to two churches personally and have sensed the change. I looked it up and sure enough, it's happening! The article says churches are, "reinventing how evangelicals and others cooperate and shape their ministries in many contexts and across denominational borders." This seems to contradict your claim that they're ditching their denomination status "due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity." Sure, the article doesn't use LC lingo like "seeing a vision of the one-ness of the Body." It's basically the same thought process though! Also, give them a break! Change takes time! Clearly this is an awesome thing to see how congregations are moving towards more fellowship and involvement with each other! Do you not recognize that is from the Lord? You still think congregations efforts to be one in the Body of Christ is still somehow below the LC due to your insistence that the LC doesn't have a name, therefore stands on the ground of one-ness" (even thought they don't back that statement up)? Here's the article- again, I'm sorry you haven't seen it but it's happening!

""Christian Americans … prefer to either identify themselves simply as Christians or attend the increasing number of nondenominational churches that have no formal allegiance to a broader religious structure.”

The article then states the reasons WHY:

""The move away from historic denominations corresponds with a swelling sense of skepticism many Americans have toward institutions overall""
""even denominational churches downplay their affiliations to avoid the negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure""

So the reason for this move away from denominations is:
"scepticism towards institutions"
"negative connotations now associated with religious hierarchy and structure"

This supports my statement that:

""I believe the increase in non-denoms is in general, due to dissatisfaction with mainstream denominations, rather than a genuine attempt at unity. ""

No where in the article does it say that the non-denominational movement is "in general due to an attempt at unity"". But I cannot rule it out, that's why I said "is in general, due to..."

So, I cannot see much contradiction of my claim, rather, it supports my claim.

What is also interesting is this statement by theology professor at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

“Very few churches I know anything about are truly, totally, exclusively ‘nondenominational’ in the sense most people think,” he wrote in a blog post last month. “In almost every case where I am asked about a church that declares itself ‘nondenominational,’ I can find some affiliation of that church with some network of similar churches.”

I have said before that nondenominational churches are not really nondenominational. This professor seems to share my point of view. Of course, more is required than just a name change to achieve unity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

8th paragraph... yes, there are many affiliations or denominations. That's why it's been great to see so many dropping those denominational ties and focusing on the key issues of the faith and fellowship with the whole body of Christ. Granted, being non-denominational, as I stated before, doesn't mean you can't have a name. Denominations do divide - I agree. Names however- don't. I know you're not going to agree due to your intense LSM indoctrination but just know your opinion and the LC doctrine on this issue is discredited by the majority of Christian scholars, and believers in general. The doctrine of "having no name besides that of your locality" is questionable at best, not emphasized in the Bible, and practically impossible to execute in the real world. It could never work and the LC knows it! It's easy to "state this ideology" knowing that it would never actually happen due to them not being able to manage it and ultimately LSM would lose their control. Still, the doctrine is definitely OVER EMPHASIZED by the LC in an classic sectarian attempt to elevate themselves over other believers. By elevating an obscure doctrine to such an unhealthy level- they actually create MORE division with other Christians in that this requirement is almost at the same level as the fundamental issues of the faith! They use this elevated doctrine as the basis of their existence and judge and follow any other doctrine as a measure against it. It's called BEING OUT OF BALANCE- and unfortunately it's something many cults and sectarian groups do. They take one doctrine of minor importance, that may even be correct, but elevate it to a point that is unhealthy and base/measure everything against it. The LC isn't the first to do it and it won't be the last!

Thank you- sorry to bombard your thread! Sometimes you can only explain things so many times, and in so many ways to someone- and when they clearly ignore reasonable logic- there’s a deeper issue going on. Not everyone is going to live in reality.

I admire you for continuing to address all these strawmen arguments.

I have lost my patience with him, and will only address comments that actually concern my points.

Strictly speaking the name "the local church in.." is for the Sunday meeting where the Lord's table is held. This is, strictly speaking, the assembly of the local church. Clearly, this is something which Christians on campus is not....

Ask those in Midwest LC's who got sued in court for their name. Columbus where I once lived was one place.
Yes, folks, the height of hypocrisy and arrogance -- the LSM church that claims to have no name, and condemns all others for their names, went to court with a lawsuit to legally acquire the rights to their officially sanctioned name "the church in Columbus."
So now LSMers like Evangelical can now condemn the church there for being the "Columbus Christian Assembly."
As Someone once said, "Woe to you hypocrites, blind guides."

The on campus evangelical groups are there for the students, not the homeless people. They particularly target the students which have the greatest potential (the most athletic, brightest, or strongest leadership potential).

So if anyone criticize Witness Lee for seeking "Good building material" then you better also criticize the other on-campus groups for targeting "students with leadership potential".

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that. Interesting that you find the "everybody does it" dodge. Go find someone in "degraded Christianity" who's doing what you are, and say, "See. Perfectly normal." No, if people are doing what you're doing, it's not normal and should be called out, as well.

There's a group called Youth With a Mission (YWAM), whose purpose is to recruit young people, send them to their "training centers", where they're trained to go recruit other young people, who will also (hopefully) become recruiters etc. I haven't been to YWAM "training centers" so I don't know if they have the equivalent of Paul Hon there, telling them not to waste their time with the poor, the sick, the weak, and go after healthy young (impressionable) specimens with good earning potential. But what little I've seen from the distance reminds me, too much, of the CoC and the FTT of the LSM.

It's a pyramid scheme, with one's relative position dependent upon: 1) success recruiting/discipling; and 2) abject servility to and promotion of the Top Dog and their programme. LC members only exist to consume ministry materials and recruit others to consume ministry materials. CoC wants to look like a "non-denominational campus evangelical group" but they're not; they're the recruiting arm of a book publisher that runs its own gulag archipelago of captive assemblies.

"Oh, we're just Christians from different backgrounds who love the Lord. . . " Yeah, right. Bait and switch.

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that...

I've had the same revelation! Plug all the components in and you have a direct sales model! They might as well sell Herbalife while they're at it- they already have the organization set up this way- not the mention the unquestionable devotion of the saints to LSM! They'd make a fortune!!

You originally argued a point that CoC was justified in being called that bc the local church didn't have a "name" per say- just a description to be used for a Sunday table meeting. Later you agreed that they legally had a name. I was always told in the local church that we had no name, but the "church in BLANK locality" had to be on a sign outside the meeting hall for a "description" of what it was . If you think they have a name now- great. I assumed you were in agreement with most people in the LC that believe the "name" isn't a name like the denominations have- of course not! It's just a DESCRIPTION of who they are- not a name (heaven forbid!). Only fallen Christianity has "names," right? Good for you for standing against that ridiculous thought and agreeing that they do, in fact- have a name.

As far as this topic goes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"I do think it's interesting that you claim the local church doesn't do that" (gain members for their congregations)

Did I really say that? It should be obvious that:
Christians on Campus does not exist for the sake of their own existence - neither should any of the other on campus groups think they can replace the local church (the ones I am most familiar with don't, to my knowledge)
Christians on Campus itself is not "a church" and is not a substitute for the local church (students are encouraged to attend a Sunday meeting, with the view to full fellowship at the Lord's Table meeting).

This is why connectivity with the local church and local church oversight is important.

You were previously criticizing Evangelicalism for "only building up Evangelicalism" and not the whole Body of Christ. So, I was pointing out that it was interesting that you didn't recognize that the Local church is using CoC to only increase their localities. You stressed this even more by going on to describe how CoC is no substitute for local church meetings/how the connectivity with CoC and the LC is so important/how CoC needs the LC's oversight....

You didn't CLAIM the local church was "building up the whole body of Christ" but you condemned Evangelicalism for not "considering the whole body of Christ" (in your opinion), and just (according to you) building up Evangelicalism. My apologies, I should have asked. I ASSUMED that by your judgements of Evangelicalism falling short of "building up the whole body of Christ" that you believed that the Local churches and CoC WERE building up the whole body of Christ. I guess I don't understand why you're criticizing the Evangelicalism movement for the same behavior you describe as "good" for the local church and CoC. Did you just not realize you were doing that? It's always easy to find criticism looking out, not as fun to critically examine ourselves though. The LC doesn't make a habit of critically examining itself against the concerns of former members, so I guess I can see how that would be hard since you have little guidance in this practice.

On the same note, I'm sorry that you continue to criticize Christian denomination's motives in their decisions to become non-denominational. Maybe some day they'll evolve to the local church's elite model of a proper group that meets in the proper way- by first and foremost "seeing a vision of one-ness" that only the local church currently sees. After all, the Lord's Recovery has already "taken the ground" in so many cities around the earth, in an unquestionably correct and needed attempt to "recover the church." But, should we worry about the peculiar and distinct practices of the LC's with their requirement of full submission to Anaheim and LSM? Would any of those issues be a factor in the prevention of a massive exodus from congregations outside the LC, given the possibility that the non-denominational churches are unable to meet the LC's requirements of being a "proper lampstand??" Are these the only solutions the LC would need to stop criticizing fellow believers and followers of Christ- as falling short, in comparison, to themselves? Being a Christian, we're called to follow the commandment of "loving thy neighbor." So, how much more should we love our brothers and sisters in Christ? Since the Bible tells us that without love- our talents and knowledge are worthless... should I assume that your criticism of Christians (fellow members of the Body) doesn't come without lovingly praying for them? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you dislike this practice of "properly admonishing" other believers and naturally, want it all to end! Ok, fine- I will. But, with your criticism I hope you also have a solution! Will you please share that? What needs to happen for all believers outside the local church to stop being criticized and accepted as your equals in the body of Christ?

Unfortunately, I think we both can recognize that the likelihood of the LC viewing other Christians as "counterparts" instead of "falling short," in comparison to the LC, isn't probable- based on the LC's history of continued criticism towards them. WL's vision of all Christians outside the LC was that they weren't the "expression of Christ" like the LC but fortunately all believers outside the LC- during the tribulation, after the firstfruits (majority being in LC of course) were raptured, that the purpose of the remaining saints in the LC would be to bring all seeking Christians out of "Babylon" (Christianity) and into the local churches to be part of the 2nd rapture (was this one called "the harvest") just in time to make the 1,000 years wedding feast and avoid 1,000 years of outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. For the Christian's who had not been fully perfected into enough of a "God-man" by the time the tribulation was up- 1,000 years in outer darkness was the price to pay.

WL blatantly criticized Christians outside of the LC, and had the audacity to call himself "the minister of the age." Do you really believe he was? Do you believe that EVERYTHING HE SAID AND WROTE IS TRUE?? If he really was the "MOTA-" one would assume his teachings were correct! What's your take on his last message when he (thankfully) apologized to the Body of Christ, admitted to making many mistakes, and challenged the local church to examine their practices in regards to other believers? What's your take on how the Blending Brothers "interpretation" of what WL really meant when saying these words in his last message (it's available on you tube if you'd like to hear what he chose to say to the LC in the last few minutes of his last message ever). Can you consider the possibility that the "ground of one-ness" although an excellent concept, was/still is being exploited as an excuse to look down on other members of the Body of Christ? By teaching the "ground of one-ness" in such an absolute way, ignoring the impractical issues this standard creates, and combining the "ground of one-ness" requirement with real Christian truths, and thought reform tactics, WL has succeeded in a facade of "spiritual eliteness." This is easily proven by YOUR comments, other local church members comments, and most importantly WL's comments about Christianity ("poor, poor, Christianity").

So, the REAL QUESTION IS- what would congregations and Christians outside the LC have to do to stop the LC from being so critical of them? Is it even possible? Now, since most of your "logic" and ideas seem to come from LSM material (which contain contradictions and logical errors- also explaining your indoctrinated logic), you might need to go to ministry.org to find an answer for me- I understand that may take time. Maybe calling an elder to ask would be faster.

There's got to be an answer. When congregations are dropping their denominational ties, ending their practice of doctrinal agreements for potential members to sign, declaring themselves as non-denoninational, yet continuing to fellowship with churches they have in the past, and also- reaching out for fellowship with new congregations.....this is still not good enough for the local church. Why? Because, according to you... they're "not doing it for the right reasons." Do you hear yourself? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction to judge any believers positive actions outside the local church as lowly, falling short, and due to shallow motives? If I could propose a different idea about why the LSM ministry indoctrinates you and other members with these ideas about churches becoming non-denominational.... Could they be doing that because this conversion we're seeing to non-denominational congregations just isn't on the local churches terms? Even though the LC represents such a small portion of the Body of Christ, because they are the only ones "recovering" the church (a duty that no one but the LC recognizes), does that really mean that all other congregations throughout the world are supposed to model the Lord's Recovery in their congregation and submit to the authority of LSM and the Blendes? I wonder if the new non-denominational congregations stopped buying any other reading material with the exception of what LSM publishes, agreed to a standing monthly book order with them, replaced all their Bibles with the Recovery version- if that would be enough to end all the criticism from the LC? What would you suggest they do to live up to the local church standards?

In your previous post (I can find your quote if you'd like me too) you said the local church did have a name, the name of the locality. Your points are getting downright hypocritical here. How can you use the logic below but still claim the LC isn't divisive by having a name?

Logically, if denominations divide, then different names divide as well (because denomination means 'to name').

To make this logical contradiction clearer, let me rephrase your statement according to the definition of the word denomination:

""to name is to divide - I agree. Names however- don't divide."

There is a meaning which is interesting:
"a calling by anything other than the proper name".

According to you, any name is divisive because of ONE definition of the word "denomination" being- "TO NAME." (I'll get to that flawed logic in a sec...) I don't think that's a very accurate definition of the word "denomination" as it relates to church congregations- but you copied and pasted that definition from the internet so I guess it must be accurate! Maybe though, the accuracy has less to do with your using it as what you were trying to prove- but unfortunately failed at. It's also a little ironic that your flawed logic is so incriminating against the LC. According to you, a NAME will automatically label a non-denominational congregation as divisive. The problem with your argument is this places the LC in the same category-oops. Using your logic, how is the local church NOT automatically labeled divisive by having name? Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the LC is divisive- but not because it has a name... IF ONLY that were to blame!!

Your explanation of how you came to this conclusion is really off. You're basically saying that because one definition of "denomination" is "to name," accompanied with a generalized and agreed-upon thought that denominations are divisive- this CLEARLY MEANS that the NAME a denomination has is a factor in making that denomination divisive (yikes). Do you realize that if "A" plus "B" equals "C"...that doesn't mean "A" or "B" equals "C?" Denominations are divisive due to doctrinal differences and practices. With this logic, even though the leaders of CoC are full-timers employed by the LC, and EVERY CoC worker (paid or unpaid) is a LC member recruiting for the LC, under the authority of the elders in the LC- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE because they have two different names and are automatically labeled divisive due to their name difference! I really don't think you should stick to your method of logic, it's not doing you any favors-sorry. You can't combine the divisive characteristics a denomination might have and then combine it with ONE definition of "denomination" meaning "to name," - then, conclude that the name is what makes denominations divisive. I really felt the need to clear that up, for you, and hopefully anyone who read your post that may have taken what you said at face-value.

I agree the 2nd definition you posted is interesting. You've probably noticed by now that I do feel that denominations promote division among Christians. While I think it's fine to meet with people that share similar practices (with Biblical justification), I feel the judgement Christians have for each other isn't what the Lord wants us to have. There are 3 main issues of the faith that are unquestionable and must be accepted by all believers. A very simplified version of that is (bc each encompasses so much) 1) Omnipotent Triune God 2) Jesus work on the cross as a ransom for our sins 3) The Resurrection resulting in the veil being torn, and Holy Spirit available, giving us direct access to God, receive his divine life for our salvation, healing, and transformation into obedient servants of Him, which would be impossible to do on our own accord. I know that's really simplified, sorry about that- this is already very long! My point is, aside from the key issues of the faith... who are we to be so critical of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ- beyond that? I get it, I believed the lie that the Lord NEEDED the Lord's Recovery to "carry out His eternal purpose for His expression on the earth, blah blah blah" and that God had "always had a group of people" and now the Lord's Recovery were His people! How lucky for us, right?! The problem is, THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE! Remember when Jesus said, "It is finished?" Maybe the local church members should pray-read that verse a little more!! The work is done, the veil was broken, this is the Age of Grace! (hope I'm not butchering this too bad- I'm no preacher but I know the basics!) And as far as the idea that God has "always had a called out group of people" goes...yes, he did and he does. Before his resurrection, they were the Jews. But after his death and resurrection, salvation and eternal life became available to everyone- Jews and Gentiles too! His "people" now are just His church- His bride! Not the local church!! It's so ridiculous I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it for so long. Still, the fact that my family- TRUE AND GENUINE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, along with so many others, are being CONTROLLED, MANIPULATED, and EXPLOITED to the fullest extent by this disillusioned, sectarian, divisive group that employs so many cult tactics that have resulted in so much pain and destruction, and brands people I love as being a "Christian cult member," is something that I'm personally not OK with. No Christian who isn't indoctrinated with LSM thought reform should accept it. It's an abuse on the Body of Christ, so- here I am, speaking (or typing) out against it.

In response to your last point, are we just all supposed to take your word on this? It seems you might consider everything LSM publishes as unquestionable truth- just like the Bible. But not everyone agrees (myself included) that LSM publishes accurate teachings so please only use the Bible to justify this statement...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible reveals the "proper name" of the church - the city name."

I really would be interested in what you can come up with to PROVE that the city name is the "proper name" to use in this day and age. I don't remember any teachings in the Bible about how important it is for the original church's names to be modeled in future centuries, regardless of drastic changes to city structure and society in general. Where is it said in the Bible that city boundaries must be the basis for all Christians assembling together for the Lord's table, worship, or fellowship? We have the 10 commandments but it seems that due to the LC's stress of this issue- maybe they believe their version of the "ground of one-ness" and complete submission to LSM should have been an 11th commandment! That would make a lot of sense given their behavior! On the flip side, maybe these requirements aren't spelled out in the Bible because they inevitably lead to RELIGIOUS LEGALISM that limits the power of the Holy Spirit to work out His body, how HE sees fit- not how LSM sees fit (I know, shocking concept). Even WL teaches this is "THE AGE OF GRACE." Grace- pure and simple GRACE! Praise God His grace is sufficient. Especially now, when you are really wearing me out.

Look, I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm in the process of trying to "un-indoctrinate" myself and I actually know where you're coming from. Maybe I made better arguments, but I still spent over 20 (combined) years of my life in the local church. You should read about other perspectives than the one you hold so tightly to and try to consider the criticism Christian scholars and apologetics have about the concept of "recovering the Church." Look at REAL church history (not the laughable excuse of "church history" LSM doles out with their lineage of "MOTA's") and read MULTIPLE personal accounts the people close to WL, who saw first-hand how WL decided to "execute" his "Recovery" and verify each other's testimonies. Read about the scandals followed cover-ups/attacks and listen to the audio between WL and the elder in Boston, where WL admits to mixing his personal business into church affairs and exploiting the saints. Read ELDEN1971's testimony on this site, an elder who literally started a locality after years of being involved in WL and the church's finances, only to be excommunicated bc he couldn't bring himself to tell an elder that confronted him that WL was innocent of illegal acts- even though he still believed in the vision of the local church and had given an enormous amount of grace to WL! Still, he was unable to say that WL was innocent of illegal activity without lying- so he was excommunicated. This is just one of hundreds, if not thousands of stories of abuse in the LC. Their requirement for complete submission to LSM, the BB's and elders, has created a breeding group for spiritual abuse.

Have you prayed for the Lord to reveal to you whether or not the criticism towards the Lord's Recovery is legitimate? What have you heard or read about the movement other than what LSM has provided you? Feel free to message me privately or start a new thread (if you can agree to try to be logical now) and if I feel peace about it-I'll respond (no promises based on your track record), just not on this thread (feel bad for clever sister).

Until then, this comes to mind. It's an excellent overview of the LC written by a former elder. I realize the name will offend you but if you can get past that- you'll actually learn a lot.

Do those people at the Lords table suddenly transmorph into people who have nothing to do with the local church, that is rich. And they have no desire to bring unwitting students into that fold known as FTTA

Evangelical: Your statements only prove the deception(lies) of campus groups. You should be ashamed.

Kumbaya, if people want LSM/LC "logic," there is plenty of that on LSM's "vast online library."
Long ago I stopped trying to persuade LSMers who come here to dismiss, dissuade, and debate your experiences in the LC.
Save yourself lots of time by only posting your own stories and viewpoints -- they are really helpful to others who read -- just not to ones like Evangelical.

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

I actually edited that quote out bc I felt bad about it

Great! Writing is a wonderful way to "validate your new found mentality." I do this all the time. I often use comments here to go digging in the word, and then post the results. It's all part of our de-leavening process, actually quite therapeutic.

__________________Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!.

Great! Writing is a wonderful way to "validate your new found mentality." I do this all the time. I often use comments here to go digging in the word, and then post the results. It's all part of our de-leavening process, actually quite therapeutic.

I know, thank you. I couldn't help myself- still in the healing process and realizing how much that LSM junk has affected me. I think it's somewhat validating to type out my new found mentality- I'm sure it's just a phase!

If the on-campus evangelical groups contravene the gospel message of Jesus and tell the students to ignore those who can't repay you in this age (Luke 14:14) and instead go after "typical Americans" meaning white middle/upper-class college students, I'd also criticize that. Interesting that you find the "everybody does it" dodge. Go find someone in "degraded Christianity" who's doing what you are, and say, "See. Perfectly normal." No, if people are doing what you're doing, it's not normal and should be called out, as well.

There's a group called Youth With a Mission (YWAM), whose purpose is to recruit young people, send them to their "training centers", where they're trained to go recruit other young people, who will also (hopefully) become recruiters etc. I haven't been to YWAM "training centers" so I don't know if they have the equivalent of Paul Hon there, telling them not to waste their time with the poor, the sick, the weak, and go after healthy young (impressionable) specimens with good earning potential. But what little I've seen from the distance reminds me, too much, of the CoC and the FTT of the LSM.

It's a pyramid scheme, with one's relative position dependent upon: 1) success recruiting/discipling; and 2) abject servility to and promotion of the Top Dog and their programme. LC members only exist to consume ministry materials and recruit others to consume ministry materials. CoC wants to look like a "non-denominational campus evangelical group" but they're not; they're the recruiting arm of a book publisher that runs its own gulag archipelago of captive assemblies.

"Oh, we're just Christians from different backgrounds who love the Lord. . . " Yeah, right. Bait and switch.

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

Did you know that most homeless people actually need a smartphone? Homeless people don't really need food, clothes etc because they get plenty of donations from business or individuals, too much in fact, sometimes. What they really need is shelter (a safe place to spend the night) transportation, social activity, and the internet..and most importantly a smart phone to call for help or access resources. This is what a charity worker told me, and I spent some time in their organization seeing how they provide social activities for homeless people - they don't provide meals.

In an effort to make this shorter, I'm just responding to new points....

I read your whole post but only want to address one point about names, because it is most related to this thread topic.

Why can't "the local church in" be both a name and a descriptor?

The surname Smith for example is a name today, but it once meant someone who worked with metal. It was once both a name, and a descriptor.

I believe Witness Lee emphasized that "the local church" is not a name because he did not want it to become merely a name, and lose its meaning as a description. But it can be used as a name (e.g. legally), and if so, then it is the only name allowed. I don't think Lee was contradicting Nee, who said:

"A church can only be named after its locality. It cannot have any other name." ~ Watchman Nee.

A denomination is not just "having a name", it is to have a name which is not a "proper name". For example, the proper name for a wife is the name of her husband, but her taking the name of her dog or any other name is not the proper name.

A suitable candidate for a proper name for the church, is the only name which the Bible uses for churches. The only name which the bible uses for churches, is the locality. "the church in ... etc". Some people argue that this is only descriptive and therefore doesn't have to be followed.

These same people probably believe in baptizing by immersion only (if they are baptists, for example, or influenced by that teaching) - these things are also only descriptive. Many Christians also believe that a person must speak in tongues - again, speaking in tongues is descriptive, not prescriptive. There are many things in Christianity which are descriptive, not prescriptive. If we were to follow only the clear prescriptive commands of the bible, much of Christianity would not exist. Another example is that there is no prescriptive command to meet on a Sunday every week for church. But Christians do that because the bible describes (not prescribes) people meeting on "the Lord's day".

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

Did you know that most homeless people actually need a smartphone? Homeless people don't really need food, clothes etc because they get plenty of donations from business or individuals, too much in fact, sometimes. What they really need is shelter (a safe place to spend the night) transportation, social activity, and the internet..and most importantly a smart phone to call for help or access resources. This is what a charity worker told me, and I spent some time in their organization seeing how they provide social activities for homeless people - they don't provide meals.

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

Or, maybe it's relevant, practical.. modern? What does the Word of God say regarding giving smart phones to homeless people? I think Christians give food and blankets to homeless people, obviously unwanted, instead of asking them what they really need. A smart phone? 1 month free internet? I've seen homeless people throw good food away or leave it to rot on the sidewalk - not their fault, what are they really going to do with too much food when they don't have a refrigerator? Anyway, first world problems. The situation is different in third world Asia of course, where Jesus's words about feeding hungry and clothing naked have more meaning. I think that's why Christians like going to third world countries, they can see a real difference. In the West, homeless people do sometimes complain about the food they get for free, and they can be very demanding. It can really feel like "wasting your time", if they really aren't in dire need, and you're there just to cater for their preferences. How relevant are Jesus's words to the Western world anyway when a third of homeless people need liposuction not another burger (obesity studies among homeless people show a third are obese).

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize". So maybe Christ did not send Witness Lee to look after homeless people (he possibly sent Mother Theresa and others to do that).

Also, today the church's role in society is not the same as it was in the time of Christ. Today I think there are enough charities (whether religious or secular), companies and governments to take care of homeless people's basic needs. The idea of public philanthropy or philanthropy on a mass scale came from the ideals of Christianity anyway. Just look at Bill Gates - there was no person like Bill Gates in the time of Christ. Bill Gates's donations really put the whole of Christianity to shame in terms of philanthropy.

That's not true. Take a look at Cornelius. And he had faith sorely missing in Gates. (see Acts 10)

I think the ministry is focused on a particular aspect as all ministries are - even Paul, who said "Christ did not send me to baptize".

Yes and the brothers who were following Christ before Paul was, encouraged him to remember the poor, which thing he said he was eager to do. But that was Paul's particular focus (Gal 2:10)? Imitate me as I imitate Christ, said Paul (or not, if you have a "different burden")?

Christ did it and preached it, the brothers encouraged it, Paul was eager to take hold, but we may have our own (subjective/selfish) leading? Your Christ is different, right? This is the modern age. Religion is different now. Christ has a cell phone and Google account.

(But women still can't teach because that's the way the Bible says. Society changes but we don't. Always and forever.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumbaya

These are all just excuses to disobey the word of God. Have mercy on us, God.

He's not disobedient to the word of God, just focused on a particular aspect. Jesus was focused on one aspect, and Lee was focused on another. So if we, like Lee, don't want to focus on "give to those who cannot repay you in this age" that's fine. It's a pick and choose religion, like Wendy's. "Have it your way".

Yes and the brothers who were following Christ before Paul was, encouraged him to remember the poor, which thing he said he was eager to do. But that was Paul's particular focus (Gal 2:10)? Imitate me as I imitate Christ, said Paul (or not, if you have a "different burden")?

Christ did it and preached it, the brothers encouraged it, Paul was eager to take hold, but we may have our own (subjective/selfish) leading? Your Christ is different, right? This is the modern age. Religion is different now. Christ has a cell phone and Google account.

(But women still can't teach because that's the way the Bible says. Society changes but we don't. Always and forever.)

He's not disobedient to the word of God, just focused on a particular aspect. Jesus was focused on one aspect, and Lee was focused on another. So if we, like Lee, don't want to focus on "give to those who cannot repay you in this age" that's fine. It's a pick and choose religion, like Wendy's. "Have it your way".

Or was that Burger King?

I don’t know- I feel like actively “checking out” of one duty Jesus calls us to do doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying to do it in a legalistic way- but if you have the means to help, we should “check in” often with the Lord if you’re able to bless that way. Clearly we can’t even get food to some countries, but even in first world countries- having a cell phone doesn’t mean you’re “good.” Still a lot of people going hungry. Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times- eye opening experience. Also, to just dismiss the need as something others can do and spend time and effort investing in those who can further promote your agenda- is wrong- regardless of what group is doing it.

Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times-

To me, it's not about the poor, or the sick, or the imprisoned. There is a bigger, spiritual issue. We are fallen creatures. We are frightened, selfish, "me-first" creatures with unlimited desires and limited means. To give to someone who can't give back, to care for someone who can't or won't care back, to forgive someone who has done you wrong, to visit the one who can't reciprocate - all these are opportunities to "get out of yourself" and find God.

As you do to others, God will do to you. Give to others and God will give to you. Forgive others and God will forgive you. Bless others and God will bless you. Jesus taught it, and lived it out in front of Peter and the rest.

The more poor and miserable the creature, and the more unlikely any earthly reciprocal blessing to come back to you, the greater the "reward in heaven". The reward in heaven is to see the Father's face. To be called Sons of God. To be comforted, encouraged, just as you once comforted and encouraged others.

If we reduce it to a earthly quid-pro-quo and say, "Why bother" we miss the point of the whole exercise.

Jesus lived with the Father in unapproachable light, but came down and visited the lepers, the drunkards and harlots. Should we not also lower ourselves? You don't have to be "Mother Theresa" - you just have to stop thinking of YOUR enjoyment and YOUR "making it" and reach out to those around you who lack. If you care about yourself, you will give to those who can help you. You won't "waste your time" on those who can't.

Do I live this? I hope, a little. But to what degree I don't presume to say. Those who pretend this was only applicable in the era before Social Security and Welfare are just making excuses. That is what I am saying is wrong. It is not the gospel that is preached by the CoC/LC/LSM/FTT; it's rather a network-building, a social-ladder-climbing 'gospel'; it is the Way of the Gentiles, just like the Gambino family in NY and the politicians in the National Capitals and the Knights of Colombus downtown and the Delta Psi at State U. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.

I don’t know- I feel like actively “checking out” of one duty Jesus calls us to do doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying to do it in a legalistic way- but if you have the means to help, we should “check in” often with the Lord if you’re able to bless that way. Clearly we can’t even get food to some countries, but even in first world countries- having a cell phone doesn’t mean you’re “good.” Still a lot of people going hungry. Just feel it’s callous to be so unaware. I haven’t done much but have worked at a Christian food pantry several times- eye opening experience. Also, to just dismiss the need as something others can do and spend time and effort investing in those who can further promote your agenda- is wrong- regardless of what group is doing it.

Sometimes on M9nday mornings I help my local church and some needy folks by pushing a wheelbarrow with their donated food to their car. I do a lot of watching, a bit of silent praying, and an occasional verbal blessing. I'm just a nobody pushing a wheelbarrow sometimes praying for what looks like a single mom with little kids, old, and mentally and physically challenged folks. This is helping me love people who are very different from me. Maybe someday I'll hear their stories and pray, rejoice or cry. My bad is that I know that if I never hear them, then I may never feel the Spirit move me to act and or pray.

Christians On Campus UCLA"This past weekend at the college conference, we enjoyed seeing the church as the "One New Man," where Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11). To put on the new man, we need to be renewed in the spirit of our mind by daily opening to the Lord and drinking of the Spirit. May we let the peace of Christ arbitrate in our hearts and let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, until all our natural distinctions have been eliminated and we become the one new man in reality!"

Looks like there are about 2/3rd Asian students. I would imagine that a large majority are not American citizens, but from various Asian countries. Of course Southern California has a large Asian (native or otherwise) population, so maybe this particular ConC makeup is a little skewed? Does anyone know if this is a very common racial makeup for other large ConC groups?
-

__________________Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

The only group which represents the local church as a whole is Christians on campus. For this reason it is valid for them to be named as simply Christians. The moment the name "evangelical" or "Witness Lee" is added to the name, it becomes a denominational group.

In the minds of the local church members, there is no such thing as "the church of Witness Lee", or "the Local Church" (in capital letters), and "Living Stream Ministry" is the ministry and not the church. So by not naming the group as anything other than "Christians on campus" they are being true to their beliefs and therefore the claims of deception are unfounded. I do not believe that the local church members believe themselves to be part of a denomination called "the church of Witness Lee". For this reason you cannot claim deception.

If you pray to dead human beings like Mary or some apostles....then they are your idols.

If you pray to a wooden statue of long dead Buddah, then that is your idol.

If you divide from the body of Christ for not receiving Witness Lee as the oracle of god, the minister of the age, the apostle of the age, the one ministry.....then Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry is your idol...whether or not you practice transparency and "name" your group after WL or not.

If you pray to dead human beings like Mary or some apostles....then they are your idols.

If you pray to a wooden statue of long dead Buddah, then that is your idol.

If you divide from the body of Christ for not receiving Witness Lee as the oracle of god, the minister of the age, the apostle of the age, the one ministry.....then Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry is your idol...whether or not you practice transparency and "name" your group after WL or not.

Only if you can point me to the body of Christ and say "there is the body" and show me that this is the body of Christ we are divided from, can you really say that. So which denomination or denominations exactly are you going to point me to? If you are unable to point me to the body of Christ, then I'm afraid you cannot claim we are divided from it. The Catholics could tell me clearly, "we are the mystical body of Christ, and these protestants are sects as they have divided from us". What can you say?

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. So, I don't really know what you mean by "dividing from the body", when the body you speak of is already fractured. I think you mean "dividing from the conglomeration of denominations (minus Catholics) that we think is the body of Christ". If this is the case, then a believer "divides the body" every time they choose to attend one denomination over another because of their preference, likes/dislikes etc. And spiritually speaking, I think as long as we are believers, we cannot be divided from the body of Christ.

Christians On Campus UCLA"This past weekend at the college conference, we enjoyed seeing the church as the "One New Man," where Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11). To put on the new man, we need to be renewed in the spirit of our mind by daily opening to the Lord and drinking of the Spirit. May we let the peace of Christ arbitrate in our hearts and let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, until all our natural distinctions have been eliminated and we become the one new man in reality!"

Looks like there are about 2/3rd Asian students. I would imagine that a large majority are not American citizens, but from various Asian countries. Of course Southern California has a large Asian (native or otherwise) population, so maybe this particular ConC makeup is a little skewed? Does anyone know if this is a very common racial makeup for other large ConC groups?
-

In my locality I would say about half, maybe more, of the students who join ConC are Asian, despite the college campus being predominantly Caucasion. At the early meetings in the year you get a number of caucasian Christians but they quickly drop off as they realise something fishy is going on.

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. .

This is a Euro-centric view. In actuality the "body" first split in the fourth century (Chalcedon), then in the eleventh century (Great Schism) then in the sixteenth century (Protestant/Catholic), then innumerable Protestant splinterings since then. Including splinters that claim to be the restored church. Google "true church" and you'll see how many besides Nee/Lee et all claim to be God's legitimate ("Proper" in LC parlance) collective representatives on earth today.

This past weekend at the college conference, we enjoyed seeing the church as the "One New Man," where Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11). To put on the new man, we need to be renewed in the spirit of our mind by daily opening to the Lord and drinking of the Spirit. May we let the peace of Christ arbitrate in our hearts and let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, until all our natural distinctions have been eliminated and we become the one new man in reality!"

"We enjoyed seeing the church" means Jesus is gone as the focus of the gospel. Now replaced with the Hive.

"until our natural distinctions have been eliminated" means that the "every tribe and tongue and nation" of the NT has been replaced with one tribe, one tongue, and one nation. Bland uniformity and conformity. "No distinctions".

One culture sees all this as "normal". The rest sense something fishy going on, and don't stick around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clever sister

In my locality I would say about half, maybe more, of the students who join ConC are Asian, despite the college campus being predominantly Caucasion. At the early meetings in the year you get a number of caucasian Christians but they quickly drop off as they realise something fishy is going on.

When the focus of the church is the church, it's time to move on. Doesn't matter if it's the RCC or the CoC.

Only if you can point me to the body of Christ and say "there is the body" and show me that this is the body of Christ we are divided from, can you really say that. So which denomination or denominations exactly are you going to point me to? If you are unable to point me to the body of Christ, then I'm afraid you cannot claim we are divided from it. The Catholics could tell me clearly, "we are the mystical body of Christ, and these protestants are sects as they have divided from us". What can you say?

Practically speaking, the "body of Christ" you refer to is a plurality of denominations, and has been split into Protestant/Catholic etc for quite some time. So, I don't really know what you mean by "dividing from the body", when the body you speak of is already fractured. I think you mean "dividing from the conglomeration of denominations (minus Catholics) that we think is the body of Christ". If this is the case, then a believer "divides the body" every time they choose to attend one denomination over another because of their preference, likes/dislikes etc. And spiritually speaking, I think as long as we are believers, we cannot be divided from the body of Christ.

Hi Evangelical,
I don't view the body of our Lord as this or that denomination. Neither does He. Remember, neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor master, male nor female.... Myself and my family were practically divided from the body by the Local Church nearest us. We were quarantined, shunned, disconnected, dropped, muted, by people we loved very much, people who had spent years ingratiating themselves to my young children. This practice of excommunicating true believers, born again, Spirit regenerated christians is the division I speak of. This is the LC way....tried and true. We are not the first and we won't be the last ones to be on the receiving end of such cruel behavior. I tried for months to reconcile with our friends, while the true reasons behind their disconnection were hidden from me. The truth is, if I had ever known about this groups true beliefs, their habits of quarantining christians, I would never have been inside at all. They hide what they do...the incredibly unchristian, cold hearted practices, unless you are completely sold out for the ministry. We were deceived by this group. In the end we were just left damaged and broken hearted. I am talking about 3 precious kids who love Jesus all under the age of 12. It was the very strange shunning that caused me to look for answers online....where I find, what? This is standard procedure for the Leeites.

This is the unjustified division I am talking about. My story matches everyone elses. In fact, they refuse to speak to us. Even if I reach out to them, they refuse any contact. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to be speaking to me either, so you better watch out! Don't let them catch you at it!

Seriously, though, Evangelical....come out of her. It is no place for true christians....no place for you if you love the Lord Jesus, and want to continue in His word, as His disciple....get out before they inflict damage on you or your family, if any of them are in.

Also, I am sorry that last post didn't necessarily address your thread topic, cleversister. I am having trouble staying focused! If it helps any, I was initially deceived by the LC on my college campus down in S. CA where I was attending not very far from the LSM office on Ball Rd, Anaheim. I was not brought into CoC but rather by the full time trainees serving on my campus....and so it began...